@@messiahspeople She's talking mostly about how Alisa adorns herself--a Biblical concept. I won't name names, but there are female Evangelical celebrities in their 60s who try hard to look like they're 30.
@@johnp7739 I can name a few male evangelical celebrities of whom the same can be said. What a pity Elaine didn't think fit to comment on Alisa's teachings.
@@carissstewart3211 aha so you endorse tradition rather than the gospel? ‘According to this view of Pope Benedict XVI, the correct view of the Council is that which interprets it "within the context of tradition, not as a rupture with tradition, and the false view is that which "only accepted as authentic the 'spirit' or progressive thrust of the documents and so rejected any elements of the older tradition found in the texts, which were regarded as compromises and so not binding".’.......... yet penal substitution atonement theory, eternal torment, the rapture, and homophobia are all later additions/developments of Christian thought and belief so in themselves are ‘a rupture with tradition’ ... no connection with Gnosticism a5 all
@@MrSASA51 "So, then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 I do not "endorse tradition rather than the gospel"; I endorse Tradition as part of the Gospel. Jesus, in his earthly ministry, did not write an anthology of books; he established his Church. To the Apostles and their successors gave the authority to interpret and to teach, guided by the Holy Spirit. The Canon of Scripture is itself a part of the Church's Tradition. In her controversies with heretical sects, including the many shades of Gnosticism, the early Church cited Apostolic Succession as the basis for her authority. There is a Development of doctrine octrine, as the Church meditates upon Scripture and Tradition and comes to a better understanding of them. That is completely different from a hermeneutic of discontinuity which directly contradicts Scripture and Tradition. Hell, substitutionary atonement, and "homophobia" are not "late additions." They all have a basis in Scripture. (So no, not Gnosticism.) The Rapture (as it is understood by certain American Envangelical Protestants), on the other hand, is not even a Catholic teaching! You're clearly unfamiliar with the subject matter so don't be so strident in your attack.
@@carissstewart3211 I agree but the traditions AC endorses are not the traditions of the early church. For example penal substitution? 12C from St Anselm, further developed by Calvin 500 years ago, Childers is the ‘progressive’ diverting from the teachings of Jesus
I don't know where you get the blessing to be preaching like this, and tearing down Fr. Rohr. Fr. Rohr brings up the confusion in strict biblical interpretation in order to promote each person to consider a practice of quiet contemplation for a deeper relationship with Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit. And most importantly, to release from dualistic thinking, which divides humans from their fellow humans.
how about Jesus saying: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. · For I have come to set a man against his father, and … " If her witness to the contradictions between what this 'mystic' preaches and the words of Jesus in the New Testament is truth, then she is denouncing a false prophet and seer by the authority of her gift of the priesthood of believers
Love the teachings of Richard Rohr. He showed me that 'God' was so much bigger and more loving than the 'God' I was introduced to in my church. Love his book, The Universal Christ!
Or more importantly... claiming to be one with the father? Claiming to be the ONLY way, truth and the life? He's the most exclusionary "religious leader" in history that wasn't a doomsday cult. But that's only about himself. And obtaining divine life through himself, in approaching him through "saving" faith, none are excluded except in demanding their repentance... in the proper time (Jesus came to the Jews first because the Jews were covenantally supposes to be examples to the world). Jesus was sent to Israel first. So he rebuffed her. But she accepted this and countered that even the little dogs eat crumbs from the children... pointing out that just because she's not the immediate primary recipient doesn't mean she's EXCLUDED from grace, her understanding of this in humility impressed Jesus, and he honored her request. Jesus is consistently impressed by people who boldly approach him in faith, but in respect to the divine hierarchy... everything is good IN ITS PLACE, and becomes more in faith through submission to God. It's the last shall be first and beatitutes brought to life.
I have learned a lot about Jesus and God through Contemplative Christianity, and I have learned from other Christian denominations but I really don't like nor appreciate when Christians critic, misunderstand and then, put down other Christians. There are many different Christian denominations and I support religious freedom -- within Christianity. I believe our focus is be on Jesus and not on judging other Christians and their beliefs and faith. If I want to learn about the Catholic church, I will ask Catholics. If I want to learn about the Evangelists or the Episcopalians, then I'll ask them about their understanding and faith in the Bible. I don't follow nor believe everything Richard Rohr says or teaches, nor do I follow blindly any other Christian leader or speaker, but I do appreciate his teachings about God's love. I PRAY directly to God for His understanding and wisdom. I do believe that Alisa Childers is a woman of God and a Christian. But I also believe that Jesus loves all Christians of all the different denominations who follow His teachings and His two commandments of loving God and loving our neighbor.
Wise and loving words. I wonder if Christians even begin to understand what this looks like to outsiders? As an outsider myself, I don’t leave here thinking, “Oh! I want to be one of them!”
@@elizabethh18536 unbiblical according to whom? With all the versions of what it means to be “Biblical” what makes you think you are the ones that magically stumbled into the only correct minuscule corner of truth? It’s Biblical to say “Women shall be saved by childbearing.” Its in there. There are a lot of gems like this that “Biblical” Christians ignore. So you are just thumping your opinion, same as anyone else. You just do it in a very proud way. I recognize that sounds harsh and I apologize. But this is a deep soul sickness to me. There is no Christian out there, no matter the “brand” who, upon getting a following that lifts them out of obscurity, are not immediately picked apart by other Christians in a zealous watchdog frenzy. Do you REALLY think this cannibalizing of brothers and sisters in Christ is what Jesus envisioned? Does standing on our particular theological real estate trump love? Is fault finding and nit picking the true Christian calling? I would be afraid to ever write a book or launch a ministry that I felt called to do, not because of atheists, but because of Christians. You all are chewing on a mans life work, with blood on your chins, and you feel so justified. Wow. It makes me feel queasy.
@@rainastor4789 Nothing I said was proud, I’m referring to what Bible scholars say. There are many Bible scholars who disagree on certain points but have a lot of overlap in agreement- I listen to evangelical, Calvinist and Catholic theologians regularly and there are core principles all can agree on. If your theology conflicts with 90% of seminarians, it’s probably because it’s unbiblical. And no, women cannot be saved by childbearing. You have to understand covenants and context and not just cherry pick one random phrase. When in doubt look at historical Christianity and what centuries of theologians have determined. Christianity is not just about “loving each other” without talking about sin, because if it were, then the redemption of the Cross would be unnecessary. If we didn’t need salvation, then we don’t need Jesus at all. Jesus is the ultimate example of love and Jesus was not afraid to call out false teaching. I’m not thumping anything, I’m just saying that it’s good to call out false teaching. Christians are not called to be accepting of every teaching or every belief, but that doesn’t mean we can’t show mercy to people we disagree with.
Okay. 2 questions: Why does the Bible lay out a protocol for dealing with Christians whom have lost their way? Why does Paul tell us that we *do* have a responsibility to judge each other within the Church but to leave the disbelievers to God?
Christianity has many different levels of understanding and revelation to its adherence. The blood sacrifice is the lowest most basic understanding. It was mostly told by Paul who was writing for Jews and appealing to their understanding of God. But Christ came to reveal a higher level of understanding. One of “let them become as one as You and I are One so that in this place that I stand they too can stand.” Modern evangelicals follow the most very basic idea that God the Father needed a blood sacrifice. But Christ healed and saved without asking anything except for them to change. There is forgiveness through out the Bible. Jesus was not atoning our sin like a blood sacrifice. It all runs much deeper then that. Look into the early church understanding of the incarnation, the trinity and Resurection. Salvation goes much deeper then blood sacrifice. Like the father said” I desire mercy not sacrifice.” Christ said He had to be lifted up so that then all the world would be drawn to Him. This is just the beginning of salvation. Evangelicals are heretics that are ruining Christianity with their ignorance. At least Richard is kind enough not to put it all that bluntly.
It's not only millennials.....I've sat in conferences with hundreds of Richard Rohr friends and not many were millennials. I've heard probably every kind of Gospel preaching on the menu and for me and many many others, Richards teachings bring us so much closer to God. I often just dial up Rohr's videos on TH-cam and let them play in the background as I go about my work.
I have so much respect for Richard Rohr! His teachings have deepened my spiritual journey and my love for God and others. I would not have stayed a christian without his input. There is a way of understanding God as a God of love and see who Jesus really is. I thank God every day for brave souls like Richard Rohr who help us truly open our spiritual eyes. ❤
I live in Glasgow, Scotland, and the other day (November 15 2021) I noticed 14 titles by Richard Rohr on the shelves of Pauline Books and Media Centre. I could not find any book answering Rohr's many heresies, and the only Protestant bookshop in our city centre (Faith Mission) has closed permanently.
Thank you Alisa for your powerful insights! Rohr's statement: "The Universe is the Body of God" was just the sort of statement that even Old Testament Israel stood against. According to respected Old Testament commentator John Oswalt: "Pagans insisted that this world was the body of the divine. Alone of all the ancient peoples the Hebrews insisted that this was not true. God is not a part of this world. He is Holy, other, there is a thick distinction between Creator and creature.” Does Rohr represent progress? His statement seems to represent a great step backwards towards paganism.
Mans opinions ( because that is exactly what that is, is his opinion) ARE NOT The Most High Gods ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. Anyone who is calling themselves a teacher, and then charging, and proclaiming that what they say is the truth, is a fraud, a swindler and pimper of the highest order. It is disgusting. The Most High God will not be mocked.
@@messiahspeople Sorry...I agree the Old Testament was Jesus Bible and it remains altogether precious. I find it to be a wonderful gift of divine revelation. My point was that opposition to Rohr's statement "the Universe is the Body of God" does not originate with Paul or Peter. Instead, it goes back further to Jeremiah, Isaiah, and indeed, Moses.
Apologies Rob. I didn't read your comment correctly. Thank you for the gracious response. I agree that Rohr's teachings are a departure from Scripture.
He is not a pantheist. He is a panentheist. There is a giant distinction. He. Is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ( Col. 1:15); For in him we're created all things in heaven and on earth,. The visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers; all things we're created through him and for him;( Col 1:16) He is BEFORE ALL THINGS, AND IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. ( COL.1:15) OR this one: FOR IN HIM ALL THE FULLNESS WAS PLEASED TO DWELL.( Col. 1:19). That is not a mere patheistic image . It does not say coterminous somehow with the physical Universe. It is way more " preeminent than that but it never suggests ," is the Universe." Neither does Rohr. Rohr identifies the obvious. A man who lived in history about 30 years and the 2nd person in the Trinity who obviously is described in ways a man in history cannot be. ( Without the mystery of incarnation).All fullness is intended to be literal, as is being transcendent.
I wish you would talk with an actual Progressive Christian who could correct SO MANY of your wrong assumptions. I'm available anytime and I'm not looking for an argument but a friendly conversation about what Progressives REALLY believe.
@@KeithGiles that’s the thing about progressive “Christianity”; once a person has veered from the safety and rock of God’s written word, the errors that that person can fall into are in all different directions. Progressive “Christianity” is a broad spectrum of errors, so your brand of error may not look exactly like the next guy’s. What does unite progressive Christians is their low view of Almighty God, and by extension their low regard for his written word. All the wide array of errors gush from that polluted fountain.
Alisa-watch the new Disney/Pixar movie “Soul” ...someone needs to do a biblical response to this. I think it has SO much to do with Richard Roar and progressive Christianity, and New Age.
I made a video to "Soul"! It's only 3 minutes, but it's something: th-cam.com/video/xUbUPRDX_Ls/w-d-xo.html and I also found Marcus Roger's video on "Soul" (I don't know him, but what he says here is on point) th-cam.com/video/nW2c7pwqvC0/w-d-xo.html
Wow, Alisa! You put so much work into this. You did a great job of laying out the claims by Rohr, then using the truth of God's word in such detail, that I can't stop being impressed by the Lord's working through you. Rock it, sister!
I struggled for almost 20 years with certain issues in my life listening to evangelicals preachers. But when I changed, all I know is, since listening to Richard Rohr, Michael Beckwith, Wayne Dyer, and Caroline Myss my life has changed for the positive. I’m at peace with God, myself, and others. My walk with God has never been like this. As the man in scripture who once was sick stated, all I know is, "I'm healed." To each his own. So, be careful what you say isn't of God and is of God.
Just curious how you define “evangelical”? This word is extremely confusing to me because there is the dictionary definition but that doesn’t line up with how many churches describe themselves (there are many denominations that fit the definition which aren’t generally considered evangelical). Then there are churches that would consider themselves evangelical but other evangelical churches don’t recognize them as such. Then there are churches where the denomination might be recognizable as evangelical but the word is never really used so parishioners wouldn’t recognize the church as evangelical even if it technically is. So when you say evangelical preachers what do you mean?
@@TGuard00014 Evangelical, my definition; Pastors who teach and believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, especially to accomplish their personal view and agenda. I believe God's plan is for us to seek truth that leads to wholeness in all aspects of life spiritually, personally, and globally.
@@user-xm5le5ok2r Your definition would include the Catholic Church and Western and Eastern Orthodox Church and Coptic Churches as evangelical, as they all officially hold that view of the Bible. So would you consider all those churches to be evangelical?
I agree with him that the sense of separation is self imposed. Sin in the original is 'missing the mark' in other words not loving God is to miss the mark.
He’s not a progressive. He’s a mystic. There’s a difference. Progressives like some of the things he says. They certainly don’t take on all of his ideas. They use him to prop up their own ideology. Richard Rohr is a wise sage. Btw, penal substitutionary atonement is a recent idea that is read back into the scriptures. Brilliant thinkers like WLC do this all the time. We all do this. Doctrine develops and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We wouldn’t have Girard’s perspective on the atonement if that was not the case.
I would recommend the Another Name for Everything podcast to unpack more or rohrs ideas as he is actually very much centred on Jesus. In fact I noticed just now when I was listening to him that I feel called to fix my eyes more fully on Jesus, where I tend to get distracted from Jesus and into works or empty theologising when engaging in more evangelical/fundamentalist thinking such as this channel encourages.
I do not know much about all this stuff or Richard R, but I just started researching info about him an it appears he gets a lot of his stuff from automatic writing 🤔 So I looked up "automatic writing" 😬🤔
Rohr was saying that God is not a god of vengeance like in the Adam and Eve story, giving punishment for mistaking the right lesson and teacher for God, but He is God of mercy in the story of the Prodigal Son. We are all included in God's kingdom regardless what we think because we will all change our minds eventually. The world of the prodigal son gets too painful without God in it.
God fassioned clothing for Adam and Eve out of Animal skins. That assistance would not be punishment. And in terms of being cast out, God's concern was becoming ," like us," while within the garden.
@@williamfranz6639 So we have the power to change what God created, or when we left the Garden/ heaven, we just THINK we can change truth. The prodigal son made up his own inheritance, one of lies, not truth.
@@robertdouglas8895 The Prodical son did nothing righteous. So we agree. Yet the lesson of the parable was given to the righteous son who pointed that out specifically. ( Hint). In terms of change what God created I think Rohr has a good point. Genesis 1 precedes Genesis 3 chronologically. In Genesis 1, each paragraph ends," and it was good, and it was good, and it was good, and it was very good. In terms of change, you can only do that by a return to the original state because all of creation was good. The problem does not begin until paragraph 3.
@@williamfranz6639 The "righteous" son wasn't really where he thought he was. He was jealous and judgmental so he was not actually at his father's home/ inheritance but he thought he was saved. Any time you see yourself better than another you haven't made it home yet, but everyone here is in this state. What the prodigal son did that was righteous was realize there had to be a better way and he wanted to return to God. He didn't already think he was there. We are just remembering what never changed in God's kingdom. It's just a process of waking from the dream. Adam went into a deep sleep (God didn't do that to him). the Bible never says that he woke up.
@@robertdouglas8895 Honestly, to me the righteous son was basically what he thought he was. God thought so also. That son was welcome to everything the father had, and always did. His blind spot was that his father loved the Prodical son always and unconditionally. God makes his rain on the just and unjust. That is a hard pill to swallow for righteous men. The Prodical son is starving and eating worse than pigs. His motivation is to eat. His father offers restorative justice rather than retributors justice for his transgressions. Read closely! The father sees the Prodical in the distance. He moves towards him and rejoices before they reach each other.
I recently discovered Richard Rohr through my sister. She's very excited about his teachings. Something about it didn't seem right to me. Now I understand why. Please join me in prayer for her and her family. I'm very concerned
Lots of self loathing I’m reading in these comments. Imagine living your whole life thinking that your creator only sees you as a piece of garbage.....even after accepting Jesus as your Savior.
@@thomasbassett4905 That's a new term... "holy bashfulness"? Is that what they call self-loathing these days? I don't think you understand that balance can be found in life. Most Christians I know and grew up with live in a very dualistic world. You're either self-loathing or you're self-loving (proud, and estranged from god), nothing in between. You're either in the tribe and speak the same language as the status quo, etc. or you're a heathen, back-slidden, worldly person who is estranged from god. Imagine having a relationship with your spouse or parent, that after 20 years your relationship can only be described with the term "holy bashfulness". I don't believe in a God that thinks so poorly of His creation.
@@andrenotgiant God does not think poorly of creation. He loves it! He thinks poorly of mankinds moral state. God's creation is intrinsically good because it was made by Him. 'Holy bashfulness' is a very old term used a lot by the Puritans and reformers that refers to a deep repentance for one's sin. We are to hate our sin, but respect our bodies and souls as good creations of God. I prefer the term self-respect to self-love because love by nature is reciprocal. The problem is that today's secular culture links self-love to self idolatry. Thus, we have a crooked generation of narcisitic people. I agree, people do take self loathing to far, to the point in which they hate things other than their sin, but narcicism is a more dangerous problem in today's culture. Also, I don't like dualistic thinking either. God bless you.
This will be short. It is apparent that Alisa and most comments below are not knowledgable in church history - and/or only reading books that line up with their western lens (I fully understand as I once did this - AND still do on occasion). Scripture was written from an eastern perspective. It wasn't until the reformation that scripture was to be taken literally. There is no way you can catch a glimpse (not total understanding, as NO ONE has absolute truth until we see Him face to face) of God or His plan by just opening a bible and reading it or memorizing it, and as Jesus states: You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in THEM you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me." So, the scriptures are not the truth, they're just pointing to Jesus, who is the truth. Unless God's spirit has revealed, understanding the culture in which it was written AND understanding Hebrew meaning of words - reading the scriptures can be very misguided. Example: John 14:13 - "Whatever you ask in My NAME, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son." WHATEVER I ask??? I hear Christians asking in Jesus name for a new car, bigger house, election of a president, rebuking other Christians for their belief that doesn't line up with theirs, etc. In ancient Hebrew (the first language God spoke to mankind), the word "name" has been transliterated incorrectly (like much of our translations that come from a western perspective that was developed in Rome from 313AD onward). It should be translated as "Character." "Whatever you ask in my character, that I will do." Doesn't this make more sense? Is the Father glorified in the Son with your new car, house, elected president, tearing down of others? Or is He glorified by loving your enemy/neighbor as yourself, feeding the poor, taking care of widows, if sued for you shirt - give your coat as well. (Don't see many Christians doing that last one). I've been in evangelical ministry most of my life (65 today and know what goes on behind the scenes of the majority (not all) of ministry's as I've been involved all around our nation and in Africa). My family tree traces back to Martin Luther with many in the ministry. - in which most of my family is in the camp of Alisa - not seeing the division they cause, lack of loving your enemies, hateful political involvement....could list much. Think about it?? Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets.....By their fruit you will recognize them. What fruit would that be? Love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self control. Which person exemplify's these fruits?........Alisa/majority of Christians or Richard Rohr? Richard Rohr is a highly humble man that does not speak in absolutes, and will even state, "What do I know, I'm just trying to follow the best I can." But you would have to understand the whole body of his work (which glorifies Jesus much more than is recognized here), and not pick and choose what you want to dis-agree with. Jesus speaks much of people not being given eyes to see or ears to hear. Even his disciples (in relationship with THE SON OF GOD right before them) had those qualities as they did not know who He was - except Peter to whom Jesus said - it was revealed to Him by God and was not learned by men. His disciples scattered after His death and didn't have full knowledge till He showed Himself after He was resurrected. Ever since the reformation (500 years ago) the church has divided into 30,000 denominations, ALL stating they are right and IN, with everyone else being wrong and OUT and going to hell. Does this esteem the Father to be glorified in His Son with the Body of Christ (many parts) hating each other, tearing each other down? The one scripture to keep in mind is: 1st John 4:2 "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." Does Richard Rohr recognize and confess this??? Absolutely. Do you, Alisa, confess this? Absolutely. So let's love each other and let God do the judging. We are all working out our salvation. It is not bestow on us in one blow with a magical sinners prayer. Judging???? another word that needs to be understood correctly. Western Christian's think of this in a courtroom setting (something that was given us by Rome as Constantine & Augustine, etc. were lawyers and viewed it this way that was passed down through the centuries), where you were pronounce guilty or innocent - with guilty going to prison(hell). In Hebrew this was understood as a doctor would judge you to find where the disease was in your body so he could help restore you. Wouldn't that be great to run our prison systems that way. Help the wrong doer with whatever it takes to make him whole. How does God restore people that do not reflect His love? In the Lake of Fire. This is so misunderstood as God's spirit is a consuming fire. If there is anything in you that does not mirror the love of God, the Lake of Fire will purify you, burning off everything (wood, hay, stubble) that does not reflect His love - then you will be as pure gold (you will understand if you know how gold is purified by gradually turning up the heat to draw out impurities that need a different temperature for each dross/sin). The one scripture that used to plagued me in my earlier life was in Matthew 7: "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many (this means the majority in scripture) will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!" It is not atheists, agnostics, or other religions that prophesy, cast out demons and miracles in the name of Jesus - It is Christians. And what is that lawlessness? "In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets." You would never be able to have a platform with Richard in the way that is described by the comments. Why? Richard has no interest in combativeness, argumentativeness, desiring to proof he is right and you are wrong. We are all in this together, trying to see the heart of God, and how much He loves His creation, with every human that has ever lived - a child of God. Spreading the Good News is letting people know they are a child of God, whether they believe it or not - and then showing them God's love and living an example that would plant the (mustard) seed that eventually will grow to a mighty tree. Jesus is the one who draws men unto Himself (when lifted up on the cross). It is our's to show how much God loves His creation by loving His creation - and to serve where ever we see a need. I am so not angry and fully understand where you are - AND Love your passion. I was there also for 45 years - until God began to reveal Himself without reading a book or being influenced by others that contradicted the traditions of men. Then found Richard Rohr (and many, many others) over the last 7 years that has confirmed what God had already revealed. Does Richard Rohr have absolute truth? No, he will admit that. Can you? As stated, we're all in this together and need all parts of the body to get a bigger picture of how amazing, expansive, loving, all consuming our God is - and this is Richard's heart (as he states much), Jesus didn't come to change God's mind about us - but to change our minds about God.
I first heard of RR when I was exploring contemplative prayer and thought. Also, looked briefly at Thomas Merton. On the surface, it ministered to where I was at at the time, which was a more quieter, still seeking of God, vs the hypey, lou, grandstanding display of faith. I ironically found them after seeing a Buddhist psychologist, who I was seeing for grief therapy and to treat anxiety after my mother died. I had lost my way with God , and was ready to accept help from anyone at this point as my christian friends seemed very closed off from me and tbh, I needed a "break" from the Christian narrative as I needed to really connect with God and Christ in a different way that I had been, or so I thought. I didn't get too into their writings and most people really wouldn't delve into a theological critique. Maybe he has some merit in promoting a metaphysical experience with God, but I fear they can go astray the more they develop their ideas etc. I want to turn to Christ once again WITHOUT a method, or a formula, or hype, or someone else's rhetoric, I need Jesus purely and simply and am repentant for entertaining other philosophies while I was lost.
I had a similar journey away from and back to Christianity, finding a need to shake the etch-a-sketch or shuffle the deck if you will, starting all over in my relationship with God while dealing with intense emotional pain, so I put Jesus on hold, so to speak, rejecting what I saw as the angry God of the Old Testament, and explored contemplative prayer and some New Age thought, incorporating a bit of yoga and mindfulness meditations as well, but after a few months, I began adding daily readings of the Psalms back into my morning devotions and meditation, and slowly but inexorably, God gently led me back to Himself, showing me that He cannot be just without punishing sin, but that He is also merciful in having done for me what I could not do for myself by crediting Christ's righteousness to me through faith, even giving me the faith to believe through grace, as I did not deserve it, and now, years later, I read only the Bible and related works (like commentaries) for spiritual guidance. I no longer meditate, practice centering prayer or yoga, and instead, I find myself listening to a lot of discernment ministries like this one and my favorite, Fighting for the Faith, on TH-cam while I work.
Just continue to ask God to forgive you for turning away from His Son and grieving the Holy Spirit and wait on the Lord to restore you back to Him. While you wait, speak to Him and fast and pray. I too grieved the Lord and sensed that distance for a few months. But the Lord heard my prayer and restored me to Him.
Thank you for sharing from such vulnerability. I have felt the same way in trying to manage grief. Rohr talks about the wounded Christ, as Jesus, and this helps so much. Compassion and love that is manifest through the cross is the gift of unconditional union with Christ. Peace to you
As a member of Generation X and a member of the Protestant (Pentecostal and Evangelical) community, My experience with Richard Rohr's teachings has been amazing. Richard Rohr and his peers have guided me to a deeper understanding and connection with God in a truly loving relationship that is centered in God's true nature, Love. Jesus is love and in love is no danger at all. The danger lies in when we try to take the place of God and decided, based on our own bias and experience, what is right and wrong. Just when we think we are right, there are hundreds of people more who think we are wrong. Spreading fear about something that a person knows very little to nothing about is not what Jesus did. Jesus build the body through loving relationships in which was no judgment at all. We don't have to agree with each other but we do owe each other respect. Jesus once said, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Peace and love in Christ.
2 Cor. 5:21 and extended context (surrounding text) - v. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
I Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” (Please see context and chain references; e.g., use free website or app from BibleGateway.com :)
I John 2:2 It is he who is the atoning sacrifice [propitiation] for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world's. Source: bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-John/2/2
I John 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Romans 3:21-26, New International Version. 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God(A) has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.(B) 22 This righteousness(C) is given through faith(D) in[a] Jesus Christ(E) to all who believe.(F) There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,(G) 23 for all have sinned(H) and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified(I) freely by his grace(J) through the redemption(K) that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[b](L) through the shedding of his blood(M)-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished(N)- 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. See link to easily click on and read cross references because Scripture reliably interprets Scripture. Link here: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Romans%2b3:21-26&version=NIV&interface=amp
As a Catholic now, I get where he is coming from in fighting the caricature of the Evangelical wrathful, sacrifice hungry God, but he’s gone way too far. Why and how does he believe in the Eucharist in communion (which IS Jesus’ sacrifice) if he doesn’t think the sacrificial death of Jesus was necessary AND Jesus’ obedience to God the Father’s Will? Makes no sense.
@@lilafeldman8630 right?! Offering the sacrifice of Christ is what the Mass is all about. The “holy sacrifice of the Mass.” This man isn’t Catholic, he doesn’t accept Catholic theology. Sad if I, some convert layperson, can explain Catholicism better than a confused ordained Franciscan. Lord have mercy.
I've followed RR for a while, and yes, I can't make the leaps he makes. Yet I also can't just pretend that a minor deconstruction that led to a deeper study of apologetics is license to throw stones. RR's issue with the protestant, evangelical brand is that it leads to this type of self-righteous legalize. Ravi and Sye sounded like this and it is a guarantee of nothing. I know this will offend some, but I'd sooner be a fool for Christ over equipping myself to judge, and win arguments, via an intellectual pursuit of theological perfection. Which imo is what has become of the evangelical institution, and why I left it.
At a time when so many in the Western world are distracted by the avalanche of events and are losing the ability to reflect in peace, messages like that of RR appeal to many that might be repelled by evangelicalism. They have the added advantage of not putting off those who expect any spiritual teaching not to conflict with scientific naturalism, which so many young people accept as common sensical. Let the evangelicals appeal to some and the RRs appeal to others, and be thankful spirituality still gains attention in our overly materialistic, turbulent world. For those that can hear it, if you want to know what the Bible teaches and especially the teaching of Jesus, I recommend Bart Ehrman. To know what has been made of those teachings, read the history of the church (in its many branches) by qualified (preferably disinterested) historians. But know this: Christianity has been changing since its inception, not always for the better, and it will continue to do so. Evangelicalism has been greatly discredited by its own hand and should spend more time searching within itself for spiritual resources and less time deriding others for the forms of their searches. Peace.
And it is a question that SHOULD be asked. About anyone who, in any capacity, teaches others about faith. But don't just suggest. Test the things she says to their validity by the scripture. And if you find that her words don't match God's word, then speak out about it.
I agree with the commenter above. Not only should it be asked, but it should be investigated. Why don’t you, Mark, take a deep dive into Alisa’s channel, work, and writings to discern this for yourself? Ask the Holy Spirit for guidance of course. Most of us who watch Alisa aren’t mindlessly devoted to her, but rather have discerned her faithfulness for ourselves. Check it out!
@@mcgheebentle1958 I've been monitoring her channel for a long time. Once in a while she makes a valid point, but in my opinion most of what she says is based in straw-man mis-characterizations of those she labels "progressive." A form of bearing false witness, and also just a form of sloppy reasoning. At least, so far, that is what my long, prayerful consideration seems to have shown.
@@rockyblacksmith That's what I'm doing. As I've explained elsewhere, most of her arguments are strongly based in a "straw man" fallacy: she mis-characterizes the views of those she labels "progressives" and then criticizes them on that basis. I believe there is a very significant passage of that says it's a bad thing to bear false witness. That, to me, seems like a pretty big mis-match.
@@markbruce7773 Mischaracterisations are pretty easy to proove. It doesn't even require engaging with her argument, just putting her representation of a given "progressive" position" alongside the words and facts of those in question, and compare them to see wether they're inconsistent. Pretty easy if we're dealing with a specific person like in this video. I've seen the criticism around that she generalises a lot. That she presents a belief SOME progressive christians might hold as the position of progressive christianity, when there is a lot of internal disagreement. And that criticism is fair, and one should be careful not to translate this into prejudice. But particularly when she's responding and arguing against the position of specific people, you can't really take this as generalising. And so a strawman argument would be easy to proove, if that's what she's making.
When Childers calls Father Richard Rohr, only Rohr, this initial disrespect sets the tone for the whole talk. All I can say is that Father Richard has been very instrumental in guiding me and scores of others in my spiritual Christian life. "By his fruits you shall know him". I do not know which fruits Childers is bearing, I know the fruits of Father Richard, and they are good.
Someone asked me, who is inspired by apologists, to view Alisa Childers youtube videos. I appreciate that Alisa Childers accepts Jesus as her Savior and is a sincere Christian woman. But I really don't like it when Christians critic or put down other Christians as there are many different Christian denominations. I don't agree with every Christian denomination but I don't believe it's my calling to call out or critic other Christian beliefs, practices or understandings of the Bible. In all fairness, I will watch a Alisa Childer's video in which she shares her own beliefs. I have been greatly inspired by Contemplative Christianity. Richard Rohr is part of the Contemplative Christianity movement, which has existed since the 1970s, mainly within the Catholic Church but also accepted in the mainstream denominations. 'Father Richard is a Franciscan Friar and is an orthodox Catholic Christian, who is in good standing with Rome, the Archbishop of Santa Fe, and his own Franciscan superiors." cac.org/about/richard-rohr/ - My focus is on Jesus and His teaching - love God, love our neighbor and even, love our enemy.
This is obviously a strong criticism of Richard Rohrs teachings, but I thought it was respectful and not a personal attack at all. Alisa Childers was once part of progressive Christianity herself, so I don’t think she’s looking down on him. Also, I don’t see what’s disrespectful about her calling someone by their surname when people (including journalists and authors) do this all the time. Republicans talk about supporting ‘Trump’ and Democrats say they are ‘Ridin for Biden’. You’ve even done this in your own post when you call Alisa by her surname. (‘Childers’) I like Richard Rohr and find his writings about the ‘divine dance’ to be inspiring, but I respectfully think he’s wrong on the atonement and this isn’t something that doesn’t matter.
@@zhmw I like your balanced comments Eliz but would add the contemplation has been a characteristic of Christianity since the beginning....Rohr, Keating and others have just revived it.
@@christopherflux6254 good balanced comment.... it is worth considering the six ( or more) understandings of the atonement most of which predate substitutionary atonement which was formalised by St Anselm in the 11th century
27:45 exactly why I bristle every time I hear someone use the term "Biblical character." Characters are in stories, historical accounts are about real people. Awesome video!
@@caytieking7642 You can know very easily. If they are contradictory both can’t be right. Both could be wrong but both can’t be right. The correct theology is the one that is consistent with what the Bible teaches.
@@MrSASA51 It is one thing to have different interpretations of scripture. It is another to cherry pick it's contents to create a worldview that contradicts the Bible as a whole, no matter which way you spin it. And contradictions are not a matter of opinion.
Having personally been to Fr. Richard ‘s church in NM, I can attest that videos like this are unhelpful and divisive, and painting an incomplete picture. There we recited the Apostles’ Creed, after worship and then a sermon addressing living like Jesus and resisting material gain and greed, in order to serve the least of these. This humble man has done much to restore many people’s faith and introduce many to Christ, more than channels that exist solely to attack the faith of others. Did Jesus instruct us to attack others, implying salvation would be graded like a theology quiz? Or rather did He say it is very much based on our works of love (Matt 25)?
Even _unbelievers_ can resist "material gain and greed, in order to serve..." Only Christians can attest to the veracity of all Scripture; the truth of the Triune God; the incarnation of Christ (not in Creation, but in the womb of a virgin); the substitutionary atonement at the cross for forgiveness of sins; the bodily resurrection of Christ for justification; and the bodily return of Christ in glory. Salvation depends on the sovereign grace of God bringing belief of the Gospel to His people, not the performance of works.
Friar Richard Rohr rejects several of the core tenets of the Christian faith, and therefore is outside the faith. He is the epitome of what Paul was writing about in 2 Timothy 4. Rohr essentially does away with all the hard realities of Scripture (exclusivity of Christ, man’s fallen nature, and Hell) while allowing his followers to uphold/stay relevant with modern progressive values (homosexual marriage, abortion, CRT, inclusivity politics, etc.). Rohr only offers deception to his followers.
The Bible does not mention universe or universal ) mention the earth or world we live in ,I don’t know him but we have to be careful 2corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
It's like getting directions to a destination, but if you have the wrong starting point, you won't get there. So, if as your starting point, you don't believe in evolution or the age of the universe, and you do believe in Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, and Original Sin, you will end up in a different place than me. You are likely comfortable with billions of people suffering eternal damnation. ( Apparently, most of the people outside of the middle east were throw aways.) Note that the Bible was not printed until about 1455 AD, and even then, most people couldn't read! I was born and raised in the evangelical world, (age 68) and frankly there was a comfort in knowing that I was in the right tribe, and all I had to do was follow the rules, but the aforementioned questions were never discussed. I don't think RR has all the answers, but I'm glad he's speaking to questions that have bothered me for years.
Thank you, I read failing forward and was taken aback by the syncretism and conflating Christ with every spiritual leader. His fatherly vibe almost fooled me. Deceptive wolves in sheep’s clothing are a real problem 💔
Clearly you didn’t read it carefully enough to remember the book’s title as falling upwards not falling forwards- a common weakness of most comments here. Second hand opinions repeated without thought. Perhaps you are the wolf in sheep’s clothing?
@@daddycool228 fair comment but I am not really interested in expressing my views on this media since there are many people doing that already and I would encourage others to explore their own views rather than impose my own….however I don’t always achieve that…..🙃
@@MrSASA51 so. You don't want to add anything to the conversation and instead just want to criticize others? One broad unproven assumption on your part, and you manage to disparage people personally without engaging their arguments and without supplying an argument of your own. In fact you'd rather not provide any argument of your own. That's literally a worthless way to try to engage in discussion. Your 'argument', (what there is of it,) is meaningless. Not you personally, but your argument. Without having to make any assumptions about you, your motives, or whether you read something or other properly, etc. (Which is what your 'argument' consisted of: an ad hominem attack, rather than engaging in discussion.)
@@MrSASA51 you would rather not impose your opinion? Yet you clearly gave an opinion of the actions of other people that you couldn't know and provided an opinion of them based on your assumption of those actions. I would say you failed in this regards this time. And as your stated method of engagement is to do it this way, I would suggest you may rarely achieve it. And instead merely give a disparaging opinion of people while claiming not to and not advancing the discussion in ANY meaningful way. I would encourage you to examine your own views on this and how you engage in discussion.
He also looks kindly on yoga. As someone who was enslaved by new age and suffered greatly from it, I had serious doubts about him after this. Thanks for you insight.
Thank you for your opinions… They appear heartfelt. Fr. Richard Rohr has been lifesaving in my walk back to God. I am thankful God can speak to us in languages each of us can hear, as my sister told me years ago. I’m not a millennial, and my vote is wise sage. ☮️
Richard Rohr teaches in a way that makes sense to me from what I knew as a child from the early 1970’s growing up in a large catholic family. I had a strong experience of the Holy Spirit from a young age.
John Mark Comer recently cited Richard Rohr as an influence to his book/course ‘Practicing the Way’. Tyler Staton and Dr. Tim Mackie (Bible Project) have been supportive of Comer’s work. They are all connected through Bridgetown Church. It’s been so disheartening realizing this - as I have followed them as teachers for a long time. It would be awesome to hear your reflections on this!
If he's a Franciscan I would be surprised if he hasn't been forbidden by his order and the Church for teaching error. But then under the Pope Francis pontificate the Church seems to be going to pot.
As I listened to and watched this video, I was struck by the insight and declarations that Alisa was presenting against anything this man Richard Rohr had pronounced. My walk, though one of sin against God, have recently learned that "apart from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" there is no other god" and the evidence presented here in this video made very clear that Rohr is not the way to the one and only God and even the words of Jesus made it understandable to me, when he said, "I am the way and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through me". Alisa's presentation is food to my soul and I am thankful that her knowledge and experiences is now being shared with many. I thank Alisa for all the work she does in defending the faith. Her experiences has been given over to the faith and trust in the Lord Jesus and as well gives the viewer of this video and so many others an small glimpse into the heart of our Lord. The title teacher is one that should be applied to Alisa.
Alisa, he was originally a parish priest in Cincinnati. Don't know if you knew that. Then he became a movement left-winger, located within liberation theology. This would be mid-70's going forward into the 80's. So he's journeyed all over the place theologically.
@@stephenargent4010 growing in faith and obedience to God go hand in hand my friend. How in the world do you define growing in faith? Faith is trusting in the truth, goodness, mercy and faithfulness of God. Our faith grows as we learn to trust Him in everything as we endure trials. But faith isn’t blind. We have good reasons for believing in God. Jesus proved His authority by prophecy and miracles - the greatest being His resurrection from the dead.
@@kross2143 I am sure your comment was well meant (the expression possibly has a different nuance in the UK) but why comment without reading what I said?
@@MrSASA51 I suppose from your objections to my comment the ‘authority’ in question is that of the Bible teacher that Ray Jeske is presumed to have studied under and not the authority of scripture itself. (“...stuck in stage 1 faith clinging to certainty and obedience to authority “) But this is why context matters and language is at times unclear. But who knows if I’m correct here either. It does appear that you’re saying in order to grow in faith, beliefs will naturally progress and change in nature, not just in depth of understanding. At any rate, you’re under no obligation to discuss or explain. I think the typical Alisa Childer’s viewer is going to be interested in theological discussion. Most people are not. In fact most people online just hurl insults and aren’t interested in important topics.
Yup, at its core it’s the same age old doctrine of demons. Man can become ontologically like God or part of the divine. At the core of nearly every other religious system is the same belief.
Early on in his ministry, Jesus chose to SHOW who he is rather than proclaim who he is. In other words, Jesus DOES the things that only God can do, which are implicit claims to his divinity, such as forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12; cf. Psalm 32:1-5, 103:2-3), claim to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28), have authority over creation in stilling a storm (Mark 4:35-41; cf. Psalm 65:7, 106:9), take control of the temple (Mark 11:15-19, 27-32), claim his ability to give rest to people who are heavy laden (Matthew 11:28), or even place himself as the “Son” alongside the Father (Mark 13:32).5 A clear example of Jesus choosing to show who he is rather than proclaiming who he is comes after John the Baptist was put into prison and his disciples came to Jesus asking, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Matthew 11:3). The reason John’s disciples ask this question is that they, like many of their contemporary Jews, were expecting a royal, conquering Messiah and not someone who, in their eyes, had come to preach and work miracles. How did Jesus answer John’s disciples’ question? Did he just come out and say who he was? No, Jesus didn’t come out and give a simple answer to who he was, but he does it in an implicit way by telling John’s disciples that they would know who he is by the things that he was doing.
So....do I stop listening, or take everything with a grain of salt? While I don't agree with everything Richard has said, he's been one of my better friends for the past 20 years.
Would be interested in hearing your take on Brené Brown. Have heard a counselor affiliated with church sing her praises and know a lot of friends are fans. What I've read on The Gospel Coalition is mixed with one of the more recent pieces being more critical of the self-focused side.
Alisa doesn't look at all of the Matt 12 passage. In the 7th verse, Jesus says that we are still as God created us, innocent, and we arrive at that understanding through changing our mind, metanoia, forgiveness, not through anyone sacrificing. This looks at mankind as eternal Spirit, not temporary bodies which aligns with Jesus' quote, " Judge not by the flesh but judge by righteous judgment" which is through what Paul calls the Christ mind.
Richard is not a Pantheist. He is a pantheist. Panentheism IS Christianity. He is everywhere and fills all things. If you don’t get this then you don’t get Christ.
thank you so much for doing this detailed exegesis. As a Catholic I am profoundly embarrassed that this man pretends to represent our church. Catholics may not think sola scriptura is supported biblically, but strongly believe in the primacy and inerrancy of Scripture. Mr. Rohr’s theology is really nothing new but is basically a catalog of heresies from the 1st century on. He would have been very comfortable with Marcianism that sought to obliterate the Old Testament or Arianism that had a similar ‘smudgy’ concept of who Jesus was. In the past, detailed and faith-driven responses brought us back to the mind of Christ, just like you are doing. Good work! An example of John 17:21.
The central problem with Progressive Christianity is quite simple to pinpoint: if you truly believe the Bible is the word of God, you wouldn’t come to the conclusions that Rohr comes to. If you DON’T believe the Bible is the word of God, where do you get your information about who Jesus is? Because we have no detailed or theological information about Jesus outside of the Bible. Any views of Jesus that don’t line up with the Bible are nothing more than personal, opinionated, subjective, abstract speculations.
Lols, immediately dualistic, like its in the tittle.... is it this or that... "Wise sage or false teacher" If you only think in this way you do not deal with reality. Rohrs work helped me return to Christ and bypass the cancer that is "religious" certitude. You get a 4 for doing your homework and actually checking his work but a 0 for digesting the material without extreme bias. It seems to me that you are defending your culture, not christianity. My question is why you cannot stomach folks who have a different view on scriptures than you? Why do you feel like you need to attack this? What harm would it do if folks accepted Christ but also believe allot of what Rohr teaches? The body has many parts, or unity in diversity. All that said I can see that you're really really trying so, thank you.
If you don't believe in substitutionary atonement then you're not a Christian, that's the whole point of the religion. You can differ on a lot of theology, but not the defining feature of the Christian walk, that's I gate I will gladly keep.
“So that they might seek God-though they might perhaps grope their way toward him to find him, even though he is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and are, as indeed some of the poets among you have said: ‘For we too are his offspring.” Acts 17:27-28 God created the Universe and obviously transcends it, but his spirit is immanent everywhere and in everything. God is all in all.
He is separate from His creation. You might build a hot rod, but the hot rod isn’t you. This is a key difference between Christianity and New Age panentheism.
Thank you Alisa for discussing Richard Rohr. I have long been concerned about his teaching. I find it hard to understand why the Catholic Church doesn’t point him out as heretic. Church ministers, both Protestant and Catholic, follow his teachings and he influences their preaching. This is hugely worrying. His teaching is a dangerous deception.
If he is denying the exclusivity of Christianity, he cannot mix or add Christianity with anything else because that conflicts with the core of it. Unless you change the definition of most of what makes Christianity align with the Bible.
Very surreal listening to this. Alisa seems to think that by presenting Rohr's statements about transcendence and inclusivity that she is somehow discrediting what he teaches. Hundreds of thousands of formerly Evangelical millennials (like myself) have gravitated towards his teaching PRECISELY BECAUSE they contradict and challenge so called 'historic Christian orthodoxy'. What Evangelicals think is 'traditional Christian teaching' is precisely the problem. It is toxic and dehumanizing and it needs to go. Thank the Cosmic Christ for Richard Rohr!
Well said. I have been a devout follower of Christ for over 35 years. I went from born-again evangelical to Reformed Presbyterian to Eastern Orthodoxy. The western, American evangelical gospel is the false gospel IMO. But if that is where they want to live their Christian life, that is their choice. I don't think they should be condemning those of us who adopt a bigger view of reality and of Christ. Not cool.
Recognizing your sinful nature is always going to feel uncomfortable and exclusive and dehumanizing. The gospel is for everyone, but it’s not for making everyone feel worthy on their own. The gospel is all about being uncomfortable with your own sin nature and realizing how much you need something external, i.e. salvation, to draw you out of your sin.
@@CB-fb5mi You want to tell me that humanity, a creation that turned it's back on it's creator, and has proven capable of the most abhorrent acts imaginable as "worthy"? Worthy of what? What can we, the creation, lay claim to? What can we demand from our creator? EVERYTHING we have, our very identity, our talents, interests and traits are ALL a gift that we haven't earned. We are a species that, on multiple occasions, came within inches of eradicating itself out of existence. If we were "worthy" of anything, it would probably be that, since it would have been our own doing.
Go onto a Alisa site and it's all "Go Alisa! Right on." Visit a Richard site and it's all "Go Richard. We love your words." The current state of Christianity and our country. I'm saddened by the number of people in their 20's and 30's who have abandoned organized religion, but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. We Christians spread, "Love your neighbor if you agree with them, condemn them if you don't."
Historically speaking, penal substitutionary atonement was popularized by Anselm, which was centuries after the New Testament writings were penned. Redemption and Christus Victor are two other atonement theories that predate the popularity of substitutionary by quite a bit. A final piece to keep in mind is the association between Jesus’s crucifixion and Passover, which isn’t Yom Kippur.
Was this a long time ago? Perhaps Melissa hadn't realized RR's false teachings at the time? False teachers could speak _some_ truth some times, and that's what makes them tricky to figure out. RR would be right to speak against Numerology, but that doesn't make his gospel message true.
it means hermeneutic - it is not used by her instead of interpretation, she used it as a person familiar with all the strengths and pitfalls of the dealing with the meaning of written assertions.
I am a mature lady, I would like to study the bible. I have no experience in this field but have always loved Jesus. Can you advise me on the best way forward? I am finding discernment difficult. TIA
Most Christians only have indirect knowledge of God. They can’t see beyond the writings and teachings of others. They often misinterpret the Bible. Richard’s teaching focus on direct experience from God. They inspired unity, compassion, Love and patience. That’s the fruit of his work. Other preachers can only argue or disagree on theology.
I have watched Richard in a conference with non duality teachers, like Rupert Spira. I have learnt of it from this later one. Understanding non duality a doctrine from Indian philosophy called advaita, not two. In search of who you are ultimately you come at the negation of everything the mind can think of, but may make the concession that "you are that" or I am that I am, referring to infinite awarenes or knowing, the knowing that is not an object of the mind directly nor a subject of the mind, but that which stands alone, called Brahman in Hindu Scriptures. All conceptualised ideas about this reality are only limitations, so the Christian God they say, is a limitation of infinite awareness, which is what we all are in essence. They use meditation as a mystical experience of this awareness. It can be reduced by asking if I am aware, or who I am, until I realise that I is the name or thought or limitation or the finity of I's true nature, that is, infinite awareness beyond thought or description. To which everything will return as when we fall sleep and don't have anymore dreams in which the limited I thinks is real, until infinite awareness wakes up to recollect his own nature. Not that infinite awareness is asleep but is the same experience as when we are asleep without dreams, what is ultimate reality. This is the ultimate experience, or non experience, like in deep sleep where we do not know anything, only being. Philosophically dualistic christianity is not apt to deal with non duality. You need an idealistic and edwardsian concept of the Trinity and view of reality to really engage it. It needs to be shown that ultimate reality is unity in diversity and vice-versa, and not simply non duality or monism or oneness. If you can prove this philosophically you have refuted advaita. Also other philosophical questions can show how non duality is lacking whereas the trinitarian don't. They can only account for unity not for diversity, even though they spend much in trying. This by the way Schaeffer pointed out. While they think that diversity is a temporal dream~reality or self imposition of infinite awareness for mere play, we believe that they only have a partial view of reality, because don't know that God is a unity in a diversity Himself, and therefore there is a distinction between God and us and the world. They have a limited knowledge even experimental of the Being of God but they lack the Christian revelation plus the error that they are in essence God.
This is truly frustrating. Your comments section speaks to why so many are leaving the church and renouncing their faith... Richard Rohr is a good man. Anyone who says otherwise has something to lose or benefit from in saying so. This is gonna be a long one, folks. Strap in. Like so many others, I’ve been deeply affected by Father Richard Rohr’s life and work, which was strange to me at first because he’s a Franciscan friar. I was skeptical at first because I’ve been taught to believe that anything strictly without the label “Christian” should be deeply suspect (even Catholic!), which, I’ve gotta say, is a real shame... It’s exactly this attitude that is holding people back from experiencing true freedom in their faith. So many find themselves in a repressive worldview and are in desperate need of a new way of doing things... a lot of them without even realizing it. The sad truth is, a lot of them aren’t going to discover people like Richard due to videos like these and it’s incredibly tragic, to say the least. Rohr’s work has been so life-giving and transformative to me. He’s given language to problems I didn’t even know I had and has helped me along in my journey of faith from deconstruction to reconstruction. And guess what... I still call myself a Christian. WHAT!? 🤯 “Impossible.” Well, I’m happy to report, the impossible has been made possible, friends. When I first found Fr. Richard Rhor, it was through Pete Holmes' comedy podcast #YouMadeitWeird. I’ve since seen him featured on New York Magazine, Oprah and countless other places. I’m so happy he’s being shared with the world. The world needs a good Father and he represents One well. I know some of his views have been criticized as ‘outside the pale of orthodoxy’, but I’m telling you, the tradition I’m a part of (if you can even call it that) has fallen short in SO many ways. The thing that bothers me, as is the Fundamentalist way, is how certain folks are so quick to heap charges of heresy or false teaching. We’ve gotta fucking stop doing that shit... At this point in my life, I almost don’t want to listen to anybody UNLESS they’ve been considered a heretic at one point or another. That word (“Heresy” or "False Teacher") has been used to control, manipulate and stoke fear. If you use the word heretic or false teacher against someone, then it likely means I don’t trust you. It’s the scarlet letter of evangelicals and yet we throw it around SO carelessly! Wanna undermine someone and try to take their credibility away? Call them a heretic or false teacher. Try it! It’s super fun. (No, but really, don’t.) It’s a cheap shot. The next time you hear of someone being a heretic, specifically among Christian leaders, you might want to ask yourself why. The reality is we need new minds and different ways of looking at things. As Albert Einstein put it, “No problem can be solved by the same consciousness that caused it in the first place.” You know you’re probably in a cult when your leaders are calling other people false teachers.
Thank you so much for shedding light on this Alisa! I’m trying to join the Facebook book club but Facebook can’t seem to find the group. Would you be able to link it?
This sister in Christ is exercising the gift of discernment and declares that Rohr is teaching falsehood and young and immature and new Christians are in danger of being badly mislead. Those here arguing against her have been warned.
Listening again is the speaker saying that in endorsing ‘the scriptures’ Jesus was also endorsing scripture yet to be written? That is, the whole of the NT....
Excellent review. Thanks so much. I attended a Presbyterian Church for a while. The pastors were enamored with him. I’m back in the Lutheran Church now. So happy I’m in the LCMS
I believe in the eventual universal reconciliation of all. However in all my studying of eternal torment I believe the Eastern Orthodox church has the most sensible version of it.
I was a religion major at Cal Lutheran. We studied all this set of different views on what Christ did. Some of the views are helpful to think about as other facets of what God was doing, but not to the exclusion of the transactional nature of Christ Himself PAYING for our sins. It's just not some new idea. The Apostle Paul definitely talked in transactional and substitutionary atonement language. Rohr sounds like he teaches a parallel to Walter Brueggemann's idea of the "royal consciousness" v. the "servant consciousness" or "alternative consciousness" or "prophetic imagination". I ultimately gleaned from more liberal sources and added parts of what I feel was good from their thought to my core conservative LCMS worldview. The progressives get way far afield in my book to put it kindly.
How’s this for exclusionary? “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Or: “"How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." Or when Jesus tells of the rich man and Lazarus: “The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” Sounds pretty exclusionary. You would have to be either ignorant of or arbitrarily, selectively dismissive of many of the most basic and well known biblical accounts of Jesus and his words to be taken in by Rohr’s claims about him.
I came out of the Roman Catholic Church and it was no less than a wonderful salvation the Lord had done, in saving me alive out of a deep well. Whenever I hear of anybody teaching from within the Roman Catholic system, whatever disorders they belong to, especially any contemplative one, I am very careful in case they are preaching from a New Age philosophy, especially. Thank you for the well researched presentation, most helpful
I think it’s great when Christian women age so gracefully. No hair dye, modest makeup, tasteful outfits. Ms Childers is a beautiful woman of God.
Amen!
Why must there always be comments about women's appearance? It's disrespectful to her teaching.
@@messiahspeople She's talking mostly about how Alisa adorns herself--a Biblical concept. I won't name names, but there are female Evangelical celebrities in their 60s who try hard to look like they're 30.
@@johnp7739 I can name a few male evangelical celebrities of whom the same can be said. What a pity Elaine didn't think fit to comment on Alisa's teachings.
Completely agree, but her inner beauty (Jesus) shines right through.
Richard doesn't travel as much lately, due to health, but I wonder if he'd be willing to have a conversation with you Alisa?
That would be awesome.
Yes I would love that!!
If it wasn't for Richard I would of thrown it all out!!
He's such an easy sweet man to have a healthy conversation with.
agree..love RR..
That would be really interesting!
@Rafael Dean What do you want me to watch?
"Progressive Christianity" is nothing more than apostasy
The Antichrist spirit.
Matthew 24:24
There's nothing new about "Progressive Christianity." Rohr hermeneutic of discontinuity would have been readily recognized by the ancient Gnostics.
@@carissstewart3211 aha so you endorse tradition rather than the gospel? ‘According to this view of Pope Benedict XVI, the correct view of the Council is that which interprets it "within the context of tradition, not as a rupture with tradition, and the false view is that which "only accepted as authentic the 'spirit' or progressive thrust of the documents and so rejected any elements of the older tradition found in the texts, which were regarded as compromises and so not binding".’.......... yet penal substitution atonement theory, eternal torment, the rapture, and homophobia are all later additions/developments of Christian thought and belief so in themselves are ‘a rupture with tradition’ ... no connection with Gnosticism a5 all
@@MrSASA51 "So, then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15
I do not "endorse tradition rather than the gospel"; I endorse Tradition as part of the Gospel. Jesus, in his earthly ministry, did not write an anthology of books; he established his Church. To the Apostles and their successors gave the authority to interpret and to teach, guided by the Holy Spirit. The Canon of Scripture is itself a part of the Church's Tradition. In her controversies with heretical sects, including the many shades of Gnosticism, the early Church cited Apostolic Succession as the basis for her authority. There is a Development of doctrine octrine, as the Church meditates upon Scripture and Tradition and comes to a better understanding of them. That is completely different from a hermeneutic of discontinuity which directly contradicts Scripture and Tradition. Hell, substitutionary atonement, and "homophobia" are not "late additions." They all have a basis in Scripture. (So no, not Gnosticism.) The Rapture (as it is understood by certain American Envangelical Protestants), on the other hand, is not even a Catholic teaching!
You're clearly unfamiliar with the subject matter so don't be so strident in your attack.
@@carissstewart3211 I agree but the traditions AC endorses are not the traditions of the early church. For example penal substitution? 12C from St Anselm, further developed by Calvin 500 years ago, Childers is the ‘progressive’ diverting from the teachings of Jesus
I don't know where you get the blessing to be preaching like this, and tearing down Fr. Rohr. Fr. Rohr brings up the confusion in strict biblical interpretation in order to promote each person to consider a practice of quiet contemplation for a deeper relationship with Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit. And most importantly, to release from dualistic thinking, which divides humans from their fellow humans.
how about Jesus saying: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. · For I have come to set a man against his father, and … " If her witness to the contradictions between what this 'mystic' preaches and the words of Jesus in the New Testament is truth, then she is denouncing a false prophet and seer by the authority of her gift of the priesthood of believers
Love the teachings of Richard Rohr. He showed me that 'God' was so much bigger and more loving than the 'God' I was introduced to in my church. Love his book, The Universal Christ!
Hopefully you will catch up one day. When you're Christianity becomes about you it's no longer Christianity!
Bless you Baron! May God give you what you need most!@@BaronReed-rj9rz
that is what Satan did to Eve, claimed God was not who He said He was
@@BaronReed-rj9rz thanks for your concern! 😊
@@Pacdoc-Oz what in the world are you talking about?
Rohr: "Jesus expressly denied anything that was exclusionary or tribal."
The Syro-Phoenicean woman: "come again?"
Or more importantly... claiming to be one with the father? Claiming to be the ONLY way, truth and the life?
He's the most exclusionary "religious leader" in history that wasn't a doomsday cult.
But that's only about himself.
And obtaining divine life through himself, in approaching him through "saving" faith, none are excluded except in demanding their repentance... in the proper time (Jesus came to the Jews first because the Jews were covenantally supposes to be examples to the world).
Jesus was sent to Israel first. So he rebuffed her.
But she accepted this and countered that even the little dogs eat crumbs from the children... pointing out that just because she's not the immediate primary recipient doesn't mean she's EXCLUDED from grace, her understanding of this in humility impressed Jesus, and he honored her request.
Jesus is consistently impressed by people who boldly approach him in faith, but in respect to the divine hierarchy... everything is good IN ITS PLACE, and becomes more in faith through submission to God.
It's the last shall be first and beatitutes brought to life.
Yelling
If PBS speaks highly of him then you know right away he's not speaking the truth of the Lord.
Anyone who can become a media darling is serving a different agenda
Ha! Agreed. That's a red flag!
Opra likes him too.
@@loveycat5474 there ya go! Another solid clue to his heresies. lol
@@LouisaWatt like the speaker on this podcast?
I have learned a lot about Jesus and God through Contemplative Christianity, and I have learned from other Christian denominations but I really don't like nor appreciate when Christians critic, misunderstand and then, put down other Christians. There are many different Christian denominations and I support religious freedom -- within Christianity. I believe our focus is be on Jesus and not on judging other Christians and their beliefs and faith. If I want to learn about the Catholic church, I will ask Catholics. If I want to learn about the Evangelists or the Episcopalians, then I'll ask them about their understanding and faith in the Bible. I don't follow nor believe everything Richard Rohr says or teaches, nor do I follow blindly any other Christian leader or speaker, but I do appreciate his teachings about God's love. I PRAY directly to God for His understanding and wisdom. I do believe that Alisa Childers is a woman of God and a Christian. But I also believe that Jesus loves all Christians of all the different denominations who follow His teachings and His two commandments of loving God and loving our neighbor.
Wise and loving words. I wonder if Christians even begin to understand what this looks like to outsiders? As an outsider myself, I don’t leave here thinking, “Oh! I want to be one of them!”
It’s not unloving to point Christians away from unbiblical teachers. It’s the opposite of unloving.
@@elizabethh18536 unbiblical according to whom? With all the versions of what it means to be “Biblical” what makes you think you are the ones that magically stumbled into the only correct minuscule corner of truth? It’s Biblical to say “Women shall be saved by childbearing.” Its in there. There are a lot of gems like this that “Biblical” Christians ignore. So you are just thumping your opinion, same as anyone else. You just do it in a very proud way.
I recognize that sounds harsh and I apologize. But this is a deep soul sickness to me. There is no Christian out there, no matter the “brand” who, upon getting a following that lifts them out of obscurity, are not immediately picked apart by other Christians in a zealous watchdog frenzy. Do you REALLY think this cannibalizing of brothers and sisters in Christ is what Jesus envisioned? Does standing on our particular theological real estate trump love? Is fault finding and nit picking the true Christian calling? I would be afraid to ever write a book or launch a ministry that I felt called to do, not because of atheists, but because of Christians. You all are chewing on a mans life work, with blood on your chins, and you feel so justified. Wow. It makes me feel queasy.
@@rainastor4789 Nothing I said was proud, I’m referring to what Bible scholars say. There are many Bible scholars who disagree on certain points but have a lot of overlap in agreement- I listen to evangelical, Calvinist and Catholic theologians regularly and there are core principles all can agree on. If your theology conflicts with 90% of seminarians, it’s probably because it’s unbiblical. And no, women cannot be saved by childbearing. You have to understand covenants and context and not just cherry pick one random phrase. When in doubt look at historical Christianity and what centuries of theologians have determined. Christianity is not just about “loving each other” without talking about sin, because if it were, then the redemption of the Cross would be unnecessary. If we didn’t need salvation, then we don’t need Jesus at all. Jesus is the ultimate example of love and Jesus was not afraid to call out false teaching. I’m not thumping anything, I’m just saying that it’s good to call out false teaching. Christians are not called to be accepting of every teaching or every belief, but that doesn’t mean we can’t show mercy to people we disagree with.
Okay. 2 questions:
Why does the Bible lay out a protocol for dealing with Christians whom have lost their way?
Why does Paul tell us that we *do* have a responsibility to judge each other within the Church but to leave the disbelievers to God?
Christianity has many different levels of understanding and revelation to its adherence. The blood sacrifice is the lowest most basic understanding. It was mostly told by Paul who was writing for Jews and appealing to their understanding of God. But Christ came to reveal a higher level of understanding. One of “let them become as one as You and I are One so that in this place that I stand they too can stand.” Modern evangelicals follow the most very basic idea that God the Father needed a blood sacrifice. But Christ healed and saved without asking anything except for them to change. There is forgiveness through out the Bible. Jesus was not atoning our sin like a blood sacrifice. It all runs much deeper then that. Look into the early church understanding of the incarnation, the trinity and Resurection. Salvation goes much deeper then blood sacrifice. Like the father said” I desire mercy not sacrifice.” Christ said He had to be lifted up so that then all the world would be drawn to Him. This is just the beginning of salvation. Evangelicals are heretics that are ruining Christianity with their ignorance. At least Richard is kind enough not to put it all that bluntly.
%100
It's not only millennials.....I've sat in conferences with hundreds of Richard Rohr friends and not many were millennials. I've heard probably every kind of Gospel preaching on the menu and for me and many many others, Richards teachings bring us so much closer to God. I often just dial up Rohr's videos on TH-cam and let them play in the background as I go about my work.
Thank you! I'm not a Millennial. I'm a borderline Gen X and Boomer. I've enjoyed Richard's teaching, it's been a breath of fresh air for me.
100% agree!
Richie is a jem!
Rohr is a false teacher. Compare his teachings with the Bible and the difference will become obvious
I have so much respect for Richard Rohr! His teachings have deepened my spiritual journey and my love for God and others. I would not have stayed a christian without his input. There is a way of understanding God as a God of love and see who Jesus really is. I thank God every day for brave souls like Richard Rohr who help us truly open our spiritual eyes. ❤
@@dimashdearsdownunder Totally agree!
I live in Glasgow, Scotland, and the other day (November 15 2021) I noticed 14 titles by Richard Rohr on the shelves of Pauline Books and Media Centre.
I could not find any book answering Rohr's many heresies, and the only Protestant bookshop in our city centre (Faith Mission) has closed permanently.
Thank you Alisa for your powerful insights!
Rohr's statement: "The Universe is the Body of God" was just the sort of
statement that even Old Testament Israel stood against. According to respected Old Testament
commentator John Oswalt: "Pagans insisted that this world was the body of the divine.
Alone of all the ancient peoples the Hebrews insisted that this was not true.
God is not a part of this world. He is Holy, other, there is a thick distinction between Creator and creature.”
Does Rohr represent progress? His statement seems to represent a great step backwards towards paganism.
Mans opinions ( because that is exactly what that is, is his opinion) ARE NOT The Most High Gods ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. Anyone who is calling themselves a teacher, and then charging, and proclaiming that what they say is the truth, is a fraud, a swindler and pimper of the highest order. It is disgusting. The Most High God will not be mocked.
"EVEN the Old Testament"?? It was the Bible of Jesus and the apostles in case you forgot
@@messiahspeople Sorry...I agree the Old Testament was Jesus Bible and it remains altogether precious. I find it to be a wonderful gift of divine revelation. My point was that opposition to Rohr's statement "the Universe is the Body of God" does not originate with Paul or Peter. Instead, it goes back further to Jeremiah, Isaiah, and indeed, Moses.
Apologies Rob. I didn't read your comment correctly. Thank you for the gracious response. I agree that Rohr's teachings are a departure from Scripture.
He is not a pantheist. He is a panentheist. There is a giant distinction.
He. Is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ( Col. 1:15);
For in him we're created all things in heaven and on earth,. The visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers; all things we're created through him and for him;( Col 1:16)
He is BEFORE ALL THINGS, AND IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. ( COL.1:15)
OR this one:
FOR IN HIM ALL THE FULLNESS WAS PLEASED TO DWELL.( Col. 1:19).
That is not a mere patheistic image . It does not say coterminous somehow with the physical Universe. It is way more " preeminent than that but it never suggests ," is the Universe." Neither does Rohr.
Rohr identifies the obvious. A man who lived in history about 30 years and the 2nd person in the Trinity who obviously is described in ways a man in history cannot be. ( Without the mystery of incarnation).All fullness is intended to be literal, as is being transcendent.
I wish you would talk with an actual Progressive Christian who could correct SO MANY of your wrong assumptions. I'm available anytime and I'm not looking for an argument but a friendly conversation about what Progressives REALLY believe.
I wish I could hear a conversation like that.
I have had said conversations with progressive “Christians” and Alisa Childers is on point.
@@matthewdyer2926 I'm an actual Progressive Christian and she's so off base it's unreal.
@@KeithGiles that’s the thing about progressive “Christianity”; once a person has veered from the safety and rock of God’s written word, the errors that that person can fall into are in all different directions. Progressive “Christianity” is a broad spectrum of errors, so your brand of error may not look exactly like the next guy’s. What does unite progressive Christians is their low view of Almighty God, and by extension their low regard for his written word. All the wide array of errors gush from that polluted fountain.
@@rainastor4789 me too
Alisa-watch the new Disney/Pixar movie “Soul” ...someone needs to do a biblical response to this. I think it has SO much to do with Richard Roar and progressive Christianity, and New Age.
Marcus Rodgers has done a Biblical response to this film
Just watched it, and I agree. Definitely so much New Age there.
@@anneboyle2951 Thanks!
I made a video to "Soul"! It's only 3 minutes, but it's something: th-cam.com/video/xUbUPRDX_Ls/w-d-xo.html and I also found Marcus Roger's video on "Soul" (I don't know him, but what he says here is on point) th-cam.com/video/nW2c7pwqvC0/w-d-xo.html
Me and my wife tried to watch it last night, we couldn't go beyond the 15 mins mark, just too weird
Wow, Alisa! You put so much work into this. You did a great job of laying out the claims by Rohr, then using the truth of God's word in such detail, that I can't stop being impressed by the Lord's working through you. Rock it, sister!
Solid case for Jesus!
I struggled for almost 20 years with certain issues in my life listening to evangelicals preachers.
But when I changed, all I know is, since listening to Richard Rohr, Michael Beckwith, Wayne Dyer, and Caroline Myss my life has changed for the positive. I’m at peace with God, myself, and others. My walk with God has never been like this.
As the man in scripture who once was sick stated, all I know is, "I'm healed."
To each his own. So, be careful what you say isn't of God and is of God.
I'd also recommend Thich Nhat Hanh and David Bentley Hart. They helped me spiritually a lot and I think they could be useful for you too. God bless!
@@theeternalinquirer5462 Wow…I’m practicing daily meditation in my life. Thanks for sharing! Blessing to you.
Just curious how you define “evangelical”? This word is extremely confusing to me because there is the dictionary definition but that doesn’t line up with how many churches describe themselves (there are many denominations that fit the definition which aren’t generally considered evangelical). Then there are churches that would consider themselves evangelical but other evangelical churches don’t recognize them as such. Then there are churches where the denomination might be recognizable as evangelical but the word is never really used so parishioners wouldn’t recognize the church as evangelical even if it technically is. So when you say evangelical preachers what do you mean?
@@TGuard00014 Evangelical, my definition; Pastors who teach and believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, especially to accomplish their personal view and agenda.
I believe God's plan is for us to seek truth that leads to wholeness in all aspects of life spiritually, personally, and globally.
@@user-xm5le5ok2r Your definition would include the Catholic Church and Western and Eastern Orthodox Church and Coptic Churches as evangelical, as they all officially hold that view of the Bible. So would you consider all those churches to be evangelical?
I agree with him that the sense of separation is self imposed. Sin in the original is 'missing the mark' in other words not loving God is to miss the mark.
And not loving each other, or our enemies, etc. is missing the mark - along with tearing down another minister - division.
He’s not a progressive. He’s a mystic. There’s a difference. Progressives like some of the things he says. They certainly don’t take on all of his ideas. They use him to prop up their own ideology.
Richard Rohr is a wise sage.
Btw, penal substitutionary atonement is a recent idea that is read back into the scriptures. Brilliant thinkers like WLC do this all the time. We all do this. Doctrine develops and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We wouldn’t have Girard’s perspective on the atonement if that was not the case.
Absolutely
I would recommend the Another Name for Everything podcast to unpack more or rohrs ideas as he is actually very much centred on Jesus. In fact I noticed just now when I was listening to him that I feel called to fix my eyes more fully on Jesus, where I tend to get distracted from Jesus and into works or empty theologising when engaging in more evangelical/fundamentalist thinking such as this channel encourages.
A great podcast. I wish more folks would listen to each side extensively.
I do not know much about all this stuff or Richard R, but I just started researching info about him an it appears he gets a lot of his stuff from automatic writing 🤔
So I looked up "automatic writing" 😬🤔
Rohr was saying that God is not a god of vengeance like in the Adam and Eve story, giving punishment for mistaking the right lesson and teacher for God, but He is God of mercy in the story of the Prodigal Son. We are all included in God's kingdom regardless what we think because we will all change our minds eventually. The world of the prodigal son gets too painful without God in it.
God fassioned clothing for Adam and Eve out of Animal skins. That assistance would not be punishment.
And in terms of being cast out, God's concern was becoming ," like us," while within the garden.
@@williamfranz6639 So we have the power to change what God created, or when we left the Garden/ heaven, we just THINK we can change truth. The prodigal son made up his own inheritance, one of lies, not truth.
@@robertdouglas8895 The Prodical son did nothing righteous. So we agree. Yet the lesson of the parable was given to the righteous son who pointed that out specifically. ( Hint).
In terms of change what God created I think Rohr has a good point. Genesis 1 precedes Genesis 3 chronologically. In Genesis 1, each paragraph ends," and it was good, and it was good, and it was good, and it was very good.
In terms of change, you can only do that by a return to the original state because all of creation was good.
The problem does not begin until paragraph 3.
@@williamfranz6639 The "righteous" son wasn't really where he thought he was. He was jealous and judgmental so he was not actually at his father's home/ inheritance but he thought he was saved. Any time you see yourself better than another you haven't made it home yet, but everyone here is in this state.
What the prodigal son did that was righteous was realize there had to be a better way and he wanted to return to God. He didn't already think he was there. We are just remembering what never changed in God's kingdom. It's just a process of waking from the dream. Adam went into a deep sleep (God didn't do that to him). the Bible never says that he woke up.
@@robertdouglas8895 Honestly, to me the righteous son was basically what he thought he was. God thought so also. That son was welcome to everything the father had, and always did. His blind spot was that his father loved the Prodical son always and unconditionally.
God makes his rain on the just and unjust. That is a hard pill to swallow for righteous men.
The Prodical son is starving and eating worse than pigs. His motivation is to eat. His father offers restorative justice rather than retributors justice for his transgressions. Read closely! The father sees the Prodical in the distance. He moves towards him and rejoices before they reach each other.
I recently discovered Richard Rohr through my sister. She's very excited about his teachings. Something about it didn't seem right to me. Now I understand why. Please join me in prayer for her and her family. I'm very concerned
Ms. Childers,
You are a wonderful teacher
-Dave
Lots of self loathing I’m reading in these comments. Imagine living your whole life thinking that your creator only sees you as a piece of garbage.....even after accepting Jesus as your Savior.
A holy bashfulness is better than self-love.
@@thomasbassett4905 That's a new term... "holy bashfulness"? Is that what they call self-loathing these days? I don't think you understand that balance can be found in life. Most Christians I know and grew up with live in a very dualistic world. You're either self-loathing or you're self-loving (proud, and estranged from god), nothing in between. You're either in the tribe and speak the same language as the status quo, etc. or you're a heathen, back-slidden, worldly person who is estranged from god. Imagine having a relationship with your spouse or parent, that after 20 years your relationship can only be described with the term "holy bashfulness". I don't believe in a God that thinks so poorly of His creation.
@@andrenotgiant God does not think poorly of creation. He loves it! He thinks poorly of mankinds moral state. God's creation is intrinsically good because it was made by Him.
'Holy bashfulness' is a very old term used a lot by the Puritans and reformers that refers to a deep repentance for one's sin. We are to hate our sin, but respect our bodies and souls as good creations of God. I prefer the term self-respect to self-love because love by nature is reciprocal. The problem is that today's secular culture links self-love to self idolatry. Thus, we have a crooked generation of narcisitic people.
I agree, people do take self loathing to far, to the point in which they hate things other than their sin, but narcicism is a more dangerous problem in today's culture.
Also, I don't like dualistic thinking either.
God bless you.
?????????
This will be short. It is apparent that Alisa and most comments below are not knowledgable in church history - and/or only reading books that line up with their western lens (I fully understand as I once did this - AND still do on occasion). Scripture was written from an eastern perspective. It wasn't until the reformation that scripture was to be taken literally. There is no way you can catch a glimpse (not total understanding, as NO ONE has absolute truth until we see Him face to face) of God or His plan by just opening a bible and reading it or memorizing it, and as Jesus states: You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in THEM you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me." So, the scriptures are not the truth, they're just pointing to Jesus, who is the truth. Unless God's spirit has revealed, understanding the culture in which it was written AND understanding Hebrew meaning of words - reading the scriptures can be very misguided. Example: John 14:13 - "Whatever you ask in My NAME, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son." WHATEVER I ask??? I hear Christians asking in Jesus name for a new car, bigger house, election of a president, rebuking other Christians for their belief that doesn't line up with theirs, etc.
In ancient Hebrew (the first language God spoke to mankind), the word "name" has been transliterated incorrectly (like much of our translations that come from a western perspective that was developed in Rome from 313AD onward). It should be translated as "Character." "Whatever you ask in my character, that I will do." Doesn't this make more sense? Is the Father glorified in the Son with your new car, house, elected president, tearing down of others? Or is He glorified by loving your enemy/neighbor as yourself, feeding the poor, taking care of widows, if sued for you shirt - give your coat as well. (Don't see many Christians doing that last one).
I've been in evangelical ministry most of my life (65 today and know what goes on behind the scenes of the majority (not all) of ministry's as I've been involved all around our nation and in Africa). My family tree traces back to Martin Luther with many in the ministry. - in which most of my family is in the camp of Alisa - not seeing the division they cause, lack of loving your enemies, hateful political involvement....could list much. Think about it?? Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets.....By their fruit you will recognize them. What fruit would that be? Love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self control. Which person exemplify's these fruits?........Alisa/majority of Christians or Richard Rohr?
Richard Rohr is a highly humble man that does not speak in absolutes, and will even state, "What do I know, I'm just trying to follow the best I can." But you would have to understand the whole body of his work (which glorifies Jesus much more than is recognized here), and not pick and choose what you want to dis-agree with. Jesus speaks much of people not being given eyes to see or ears to hear. Even his disciples (in relationship with THE SON OF GOD right before them) had those qualities as they did not know who He was - except Peter to whom Jesus said - it was revealed to Him by God and was not learned by men. His disciples scattered after His death and didn't have full knowledge till He showed Himself after He was resurrected.
Ever since the reformation (500 years ago) the church has divided into 30,000 denominations, ALL stating they are right and IN, with everyone else being wrong and OUT and going to hell. Does this esteem the Father to be glorified in His Son with the Body of Christ (many parts) hating each other, tearing each other down? The one scripture to keep in mind is: 1st John 4:2 "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." Does Richard Rohr recognize and confess this??? Absolutely. Do you, Alisa, confess this? Absolutely. So let's love each other and let God do the judging. We are all working out our salvation. It is not bestow on us in one blow with a magical sinners prayer.
Judging???? another word that needs to be understood correctly. Western Christian's think of this in a courtroom setting (something that was given us by Rome as Constantine & Augustine, etc. were lawyers and viewed it this way that was passed down through the centuries), where you were pronounce guilty or innocent - with guilty going to prison(hell). In Hebrew this was understood as a doctor would judge you to find where the disease was in your body so he could help restore you. Wouldn't that be great to run our prison systems that way. Help the wrong doer with whatever it takes to make him whole. How does God restore people that do not reflect His love? In the Lake of Fire. This is so misunderstood as God's spirit is a consuming fire. If there is anything in you that does not mirror the love of God, the Lake of Fire will purify you, burning off everything (wood, hay, stubble) that does not reflect His love - then you will be as pure gold (you will understand if you know how gold is purified by gradually turning up the heat to draw out impurities that need a different temperature for each dross/sin).
The one scripture that used to plagued me in my earlier life was in Matthew 7: "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many (this means the majority in scripture) will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!" It is not atheists, agnostics, or other religions that prophesy, cast out demons and miracles in the name of Jesus - It is Christians. And what is that lawlessness? "In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets."
You would never be able to have a platform with Richard in the way that is described by the comments. Why? Richard has no interest in combativeness, argumentativeness, desiring to proof he is right and you are wrong. We are all in this together, trying to see the heart of God, and how much He loves His creation, with every human that has ever lived - a child of God. Spreading the Good News is letting people know they are a child of God, whether they believe it or not - and then showing them God's love and living an example that would plant the (mustard) seed that eventually will grow to a mighty tree. Jesus is the one who draws men unto Himself (when lifted up on the cross). It is our's to show how much God loves His creation by loving His creation - and to serve where ever we see a need.
I am so not angry and fully understand where you are - AND Love your passion. I was there also for 45 years - until God began to reveal Himself without reading a book or being influenced by others that contradicted the traditions of men. Then found Richard Rohr (and many, many others) over the last 7 years that has confirmed what God had already revealed. Does Richard Rohr have absolute truth? No, he will admit that. Can you? As stated, we're all in this together and need all parts of the body to get a bigger picture of how amazing, expansive, loving, all consuming our God is - and this is Richard's heart (as he states much), Jesus didn't come to change God's mind about us - but to change our minds about God.
What drivel.
I first heard of RR when I was exploring contemplative prayer and thought. Also, looked briefly at Thomas Merton. On the surface, it ministered to where I was at at the time, which was a more quieter, still seeking of God, vs the hypey, lou, grandstanding display of faith. I ironically found them after seeing a Buddhist psychologist, who I was seeing for grief therapy and to treat anxiety after my mother died. I had lost my way with God , and was ready to accept help from anyone at this point as my christian friends seemed very closed off from me and tbh, I needed a "break" from the Christian narrative as I needed to really connect with God and Christ in a different way that I had been, or so I thought. I didn't get too into their writings and most people really wouldn't delve into a theological critique. Maybe he has some merit in promoting a metaphysical experience with God, but I fear they can go astray the more they develop their ideas etc. I want to turn to Christ once again WITHOUT a method, or a formula, or hype, or someone else's rhetoric, I need Jesus purely and simply and am repentant for entertaining other philosophies while I was lost.
I had a similar journey away from and back to Christianity, finding a need to shake the etch-a-sketch or shuffle the deck if you will, starting all over in my relationship with God while dealing with intense emotional pain, so I put Jesus on hold, so to speak, rejecting what I saw as the angry God of the Old Testament, and explored contemplative prayer and some New Age thought, incorporating a bit of yoga and mindfulness meditations as well, but after a few months, I began adding daily readings of the Psalms back into my morning devotions and meditation, and slowly but inexorably, God gently led me back to Himself, showing me that He cannot be just without punishing sin, but that He is also merciful in having done for me what I could not do for myself by crediting Christ's righteousness to me through faith, even giving me the faith to believe through grace, as I did not deserve it, and now, years later, I read only the Bible and related works (like commentaries) for spiritual guidance. I no longer meditate, practice centering prayer or yoga, and instead, I find myself listening to a lot of discernment ministries like this one and my favorite, Fighting for the Faith, on TH-cam while I work.
Just continue to ask God to forgive you for turning away from His Son and grieving the Holy Spirit and wait on the Lord to restore you back to Him. While you wait, speak to Him and fast and pray. I too grieved the Lord and sensed that distance for a few months. But the Lord heard my prayer and restored me to Him.
Thank you for sharing from such vulnerability. I have felt the same way in trying to manage grief. Rohr talks about the wounded Christ, as Jesus, and this helps so much. Compassion and love that is manifest through the cross is the gift of unconditional union with Christ.
Peace to you
As a member of Generation X and a member of the Protestant (Pentecostal and Evangelical) community, My experience with Richard Rohr's teachings has been amazing. Richard Rohr and his peers have guided me to a deeper understanding and connection with God in a truly loving relationship that is centered in God's true nature, Love. Jesus is love and in love is no danger at all. The danger lies in when we try to take the place of God and decided, based on our own bias and experience, what is right and wrong. Just when we think we are right, there are hundreds of people more who think we are wrong. Spreading fear about something that a person knows very little to nothing about is not what Jesus did. Jesus build the body through loving relationships in which was no judgment at all. We don't have to agree with each other but we do owe each other respect. Jesus once said, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Peace and love in Christ.
Jesus clearly states in John:14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments", Jesus wrote the commandments and gave them to Moses.
I thought God gave the commandments to Moses.
Yep. Jesus is God.
Of course Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and Gospel of Mercy also. And the Trinity is God. Better theology
Love one another as I have loved you. This is how they will know you are my deciples. Keep his Commandments including his great Commandment
Where exactly does Jesus himself teach that he died "to take our punishment upon Himself"?
2 Cor. 5:21 and extended context (surrounding text) - v. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
I Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” (Please see context and chain references; e.g., use free website or app from BibleGateway.com :)
I John 2:2 It is he who is the atoning sacrifice [propitiation] for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world's.
Source: bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-John/2/2
@@user-hi8rg7bl2s None of this is "Jesus himself" teaching substitutionary atonement.
I John 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Romans 3:21-26, New International Version.
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God(A) has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.(B) 22 This righteousness(C) is given through faith(D) in[a] Jesus Christ(E) to all who believe.(F) There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,(G) 23 for all have sinned(H) and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified(I) freely by his grace(J) through the redemption(K) that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[b](L) through the shedding of his blood(M)-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished(N)- 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
See link to easily click on and read cross references because Scripture reliably interprets Scripture. Link here:
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Romans%2b3:21-26&version=NIV&interface=amp
As a Catholic now, I get where he is coming from in fighting the caricature of the Evangelical wrathful, sacrifice hungry God, but he’s gone way too far. Why and how does he believe in the Eucharist in communion (which IS Jesus’ sacrifice) if he doesn’t think the sacrificial death of Jesus was necessary AND Jesus’ obedience to God the Father’s Will? Makes no sense.
I hear ya. You would think that, as a Catholic priest, he would believe that. But he doesn't.
@@lilafeldman8630 right?! Offering the sacrifice of Christ is what the Mass is all about. The “holy sacrifice of the Mass.” This man isn’t Catholic, he doesn’t accept Catholic theology. Sad if I, some convert layperson, can explain Catholicism better than a confused ordained Franciscan. Lord have mercy.
I've followed RR for a while, and yes, I can't make the leaps he makes.
Yet I also can't just pretend that a minor deconstruction that led to a deeper study of apologetics is license to throw stones.
RR's issue with the protestant, evangelical brand is that it leads to this type of self-righteous legalize.
Ravi and Sye sounded like this and it is a guarantee of nothing.
I know this will offend some, but I'd sooner be a fool for Christ over equipping myself to judge, and win arguments, via an intellectual pursuit of theological perfection.
Which imo is what has become of the evangelical institution, and why I left it.
At a time when so many in the Western world are distracted by the avalanche of events and are losing the ability to reflect in peace, messages like that of RR appeal to many that might be repelled by evangelicalism. They have the added advantage of not putting off those who expect any spiritual teaching not to conflict with scientific naturalism, which so many young people accept as common sensical.
Let the evangelicals appeal to some and the RRs appeal to others, and be thankful spirituality still gains attention in our overly materialistic, turbulent world.
For those that can hear it, if you want to know what the Bible teaches and especially the teaching of Jesus, I recommend Bart Ehrman. To know what has been made of those teachings, read the history of the church (in its many branches) by qualified (preferably disinterested) historians. But know this: Christianity has been changing since its inception, not always for the better, and it will continue to do so.
Evangelicalism has been greatly discredited by its own hand and should spend more time searching within itself for spiritual resources and less time deriding others for the forms of their searches. Peace.
Alisa Childers: Wise Sage or False Teacher? Not saying that she is, necessarily--but I *am* suggesting that the question can and should cut both ways.
And it is a question that SHOULD be asked. About anyone who, in any capacity, teaches others about faith.
But don't just suggest.
Test the things she says to their validity by the scripture. And if you find that her words don't match God's word, then speak out about it.
I agree with the commenter above. Not only should it be asked, but it should be investigated. Why don’t you, Mark, take a deep dive into Alisa’s channel, work, and writings to discern this for yourself? Ask the Holy Spirit for guidance of course. Most of us who watch Alisa aren’t mindlessly devoted to her, but rather have discerned her faithfulness for ourselves. Check it out!
@@mcgheebentle1958 I've been monitoring her channel for a long time. Once in a while she makes a valid point, but in my opinion most of what she says is based in straw-man mis-characterizations of those she labels "progressive." A form of bearing false witness, and also just a form of sloppy reasoning. At least, so far, that is what my long, prayerful consideration seems to have shown.
@@rockyblacksmith That's what I'm doing. As I've explained elsewhere, most of her arguments are strongly based in a "straw man" fallacy: she mis-characterizes the views of those she labels "progressives" and then criticizes them on that basis. I believe there is a very significant passage of that says it's a bad thing to bear false witness. That, to me, seems like a pretty big mis-match.
@@markbruce7773 Mischaracterisations are pretty easy to proove. It doesn't even require engaging with her argument, just putting her representation of a given "progressive" position" alongside the words and facts of those in question, and compare them to see wether they're inconsistent. Pretty easy if we're dealing with a specific person like in this video.
I've seen the criticism around that she generalises a lot. That she presents a belief SOME progressive christians might hold as the position of progressive christianity, when there is a lot of internal disagreement.
And that criticism is fair, and one should be careful not to translate this into prejudice.
But particularly when she's responding and arguing against the position of specific people, you can't really take this as generalising. And so a strawman argument would be easy to proove, if that's what she's making.
When Childers calls Father Richard Rohr, only Rohr, this initial disrespect sets the tone for the whole talk. All I can say is that Father Richard has been very instrumental in guiding me and scores of others in my spiritual Christian life. "By his fruits you shall know him". I do not know which fruits Childers is bearing, I know the fruits of Father Richard, and they are good.
Someone asked me, who is inspired by apologists, to view Alisa Childers youtube videos. I appreciate that Alisa Childers accepts Jesus as her Savior and is a sincere Christian woman. But I really don't like it when Christians critic or put down other Christians as there are many different Christian denominations. I don't agree with every Christian denomination but I don't believe it's my calling to call out or critic other Christian beliefs, practices or understandings of the Bible. In all fairness, I will watch a Alisa Childer's video in which she shares her own beliefs.
I have been greatly inspired by Contemplative Christianity. Richard Rohr is part of the Contemplative Christianity movement, which has existed since the 1970s, mainly within the Catholic Church but also accepted in the mainstream denominations.
'Father Richard is a Franciscan Friar and is an orthodox Catholic Christian, who is in good standing with Rome, the Archbishop of Santa Fe, and his own Franciscan superiors." cac.org/about/richard-rohr/ -
My focus is on Jesus and His teaching - love God, love our neighbor and even, love our enemy.
This is obviously a strong criticism of Richard Rohrs teachings, but I thought it was respectful and not a personal attack at all. Alisa Childers was once part of progressive Christianity herself, so I don’t think she’s looking down on him.
Also, I don’t see what’s disrespectful about her calling someone by their surname when people (including journalists and authors) do this all the time. Republicans talk about supporting ‘Trump’ and Democrats say they are ‘Ridin for Biden’. You’ve even done this in your own post when you call Alisa by her surname. (‘Childers’)
I like Richard Rohr and find his writings about the ‘divine dance’ to be inspiring, but I respectfully think he’s wrong on the atonement and this isn’t something that doesn’t matter.
@@zhmw Its strong criticism, but I don’t think its a personal attack or putting him down. (Compared to some people, this is very respectful)
@@zhmw I like your balanced comments Eliz but would add the contemplation has been a characteristic of Christianity since the beginning....Rohr, Keating and others have just revived it.
@@christopherflux6254 good balanced comment.... it is worth considering the six ( or more) understandings of the atonement most of which predate substitutionary atonement which was formalised by St Anselm in the 11th century
27:45 exactly why I bristle every time I hear someone use the term "Biblical character." Characters are in stories, historical accounts are about real people. Awesome video!
RR's theology is so troubling that you have to wonder what's his appeal. Continued to stand for truth.
A ‘non-judgemental’ nice guy Jesus is VERY appealing to the world! Yet it’s wrong.
Maybe it is your theology and Alisa's theology that are wrong? Who knows?
@@caytieking7642 You can know very easily. If they are contradictory both can’t be right. Both could be wrong but both can’t be right. The correct theology is the one that is consistent with what the Bible teaches.
@@robertgellert1325 so many who express comments like yours assume the is only one interpretation of scripture, their own.
@@MrSASA51 It is one thing to have different interpretations of scripture. It is another to cherry pick it's contents to create a worldview that contradicts the Bible as a whole, no matter which way you spin it.
And contradictions are not a matter of opinion.
Having personally been to Fr. Richard ‘s church in NM, I can attest that videos like this are unhelpful and divisive, and painting an incomplete picture. There we recited the Apostles’ Creed, after worship and then a sermon addressing living like Jesus and resisting material gain and greed, in order to serve the least of these. This humble man has done much to restore many people’s faith and introduce many to Christ, more than channels that exist solely to attack the faith of others. Did Jesus instruct us to attack others, implying salvation would be graded like a theology quiz? Or rather did He say it is very much based on our works of love (Matt 25)?
Even _unbelievers_ can resist "material gain and greed, in order to serve..." Only Christians can attest to the veracity of all Scripture; the truth of the Triune God; the incarnation of Christ (not in Creation, but in the womb of a virgin); the substitutionary atonement at the cross for forgiveness of sins; the bodily resurrection of Christ for justification; and the bodily return of Christ in glory. Salvation depends on the sovereign grace of God bringing belief of the Gospel to His people, not the performance of works.
Friar Richard Rohr rejects several of the core tenets of the Christian faith, and therefore is outside the faith. He is the epitome of what Paul was writing about in 2 Timothy 4. Rohr essentially does away with all the hard realities of Scripture (exclusivity of Christ, man’s fallen nature, and Hell) while allowing his followers to uphold/stay relevant with modern progressive values (homosexual marriage, abortion, CRT, inclusivity politics, etc.). Rohr only offers deception to his followers.
The Bible does not mention universe or universal ) mention the earth or world we live in ,I don’t know him but we have to be careful 2corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
It's like getting directions to a destination, but if you have the wrong starting point, you won't get there. So, if as your starting point, you don't believe in evolution or the age of the universe, and you do believe in Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, and Original Sin, you will end up in a different place than me. You are likely comfortable with billions of people suffering eternal damnation. ( Apparently, most of the people outside of the middle east were throw aways.) Note that the Bible was not printed until about 1455 AD, and even then, most people couldn't read! I was born and raised in the evangelical world, (age 68) and frankly there was a comfort in knowing that I was in the right tribe, and all I had to do was follow the rules, but the aforementioned questions were never discussed. I don't think RR has all the answers, but I'm glad he's speaking to questions that have bothered me for years.
Thank you, I read failing forward and was taken aback by the syncretism and conflating Christ with every spiritual leader. His fatherly vibe almost fooled me. Deceptive wolves in sheep’s clothing are a real problem 💔
Clearly you didn’t read it carefully enough to remember the book’s title as falling upwards not falling forwards- a common weakness of most comments here. Second hand opinions repeated without thought. Perhaps you are the wolf in sheep’s clothing?
@@MrSASA51 matbr, maybe not. Buy instead of pointing out other people's mistakes why dont you offer you own thoughts for comment?
@@daddycool228 fair comment but I am not really interested in expressing my views on this media since there are many people doing that already and I would encourage others to explore their own views rather than impose my own….however I don’t always achieve that…..🙃
@@MrSASA51 so. You don't want to add anything to the conversation and instead just want to criticize others? One broad unproven assumption on your part, and you manage to disparage people personally without engaging their arguments and without supplying an argument of your own. In fact you'd rather not provide any argument of your own. That's literally a worthless way to try to engage in discussion. Your 'argument', (what there is of it,) is meaningless. Not you personally, but your argument. Without having to make any assumptions about you, your motives, or whether you read something or other properly, etc. (Which is what your 'argument' consisted of: an ad hominem attack, rather than engaging in discussion.)
@@MrSASA51 you would rather not impose your opinion? Yet you clearly gave an opinion of the actions of other people that you couldn't know and provided an opinion of them based on your assumption of those actions. I would say you failed in this regards this time. And as your stated method of engagement is to do it this way, I would suggest you may rarely achieve it. And instead merely give a disparaging opinion of people while claiming not to and not advancing the discussion in ANY meaningful way. I would encourage you to examine your own views on this and how you engage in discussion.
He also looks kindly on yoga. As someone who was enslaved by new age and suffered greatly from it, I had serious doubts about him after this. Thanks for you insight.
So well done!!! Thank you for digging into the false teachings of Rohr. God bless you.
Not false.
Not false at all..you maybe just dont understand
Where are the links to where you got the quotes?
Thank you for your opinions… They appear heartfelt. Fr. Richard Rohr has been lifesaving in my walk back to God. I am thankful God can speak to us in languages each of us can hear, as my sister told me years ago. I’m not a millennial, and my vote is wise sage. ☮️
The God of the Bible or the god of New Agers?
This entire comment is condescending.
@@kevinevans8892 God of the new or old Testaments? The God of Trump? Which one are you comparing it to?
Richard Rohr teaches in a way that makes sense to me from what I knew as a child from the early 1970’s growing up in a large catholic family. I had a strong experience of the Holy Spirit from a young age.
I converted to Catholicism a long while ago.. should I leave and go back to my Baptist Church roots???
My first counterquestion would be; What were your reasons for converting?
John Mark Comer recently cited Richard Rohr as an influence to his book/course ‘Practicing the Way’. Tyler Staton and Dr. Tim Mackie (Bible Project) have been supportive of Comer’s work. They are all connected through Bridgetown Church. It’s been so disheartening realizing this - as I have followed them as teachers for a long time. It would be awesome to hear your reflections on this!
If he's a Franciscan I would be surprised if he hasn't been forbidden by his order and the Church for teaching error. But then under the Pope Francis pontificate the Church seems to be going to pot.
As I listened to and watched this video, I was struck by the insight and declarations that Alisa was presenting against anything this man Richard Rohr had pronounced. My walk, though one of sin against God, have recently learned that "apart from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" there is no other god" and the evidence presented here in this video made very clear that Rohr is not the way to the one and only God and even the words of Jesus made it understandable to me, when he said, "I am the way and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through me". Alisa's presentation is food to my soul and I am thankful that her knowledge and experiences is now being shared with many. I thank Alisa for all the work she does in defending the faith. Her experiences has been given over to the faith and trust in the Lord Jesus and as well gives the viewer of this video and so many others an small glimpse into the heart of our Lord. The title teacher is one that should be applied to Alisa.
Excellent video. I am thankful for all that you are doing to expose the dangers of PC. Btw looking forward to reading your book.
Alisa, he was originally a parish priest in Cincinnati. Don't know if you knew that. Then he became a movement left-winger, located within liberation theology. This would be mid-70's going forward into the 80's. So he's journeyed all over the place theologically.
@@stephenargent4010 growing in faith and obedience to God go hand in hand my friend. How in the world do you define growing in faith? Faith is trusting in the truth, goodness, mercy and faithfulness of God. Our faith grows as we learn to trust Him in everything as we endure trials. But faith isn’t blind. We have good reasons for believing in God. Jesus proved His authority by prophecy and miracles - the greatest being His resurrection from the dead.
@@stephenargent4010 it was kindly meant. This is a public forum and my comment is related to something you said 😉
@@kross2143 I am sure your comment was well meant (the expression possibly has a different nuance in the UK) but why comment without reading what I said?
@@MrSASA51 I suppose from your objections to my comment the ‘authority’ in question is that of the Bible teacher that Ray Jeske is presumed to have studied under and not the authority of scripture itself. (“...stuck in stage 1 faith clinging to certainty and obedience to authority “) But this is why context matters and language is at times unclear. But who knows if I’m correct here either. It does appear that you’re saying in order to grow in faith, beliefs will naturally progress and change in nature, not just in depth of understanding. At any rate, you’re under no obligation to discuss or explain. I think the typical Alisa Childer’s viewer is going to be interested in theological discussion. Most people are not. In fact most people online just hurl insults and aren’t interested in important topics.
Same anti-Christ argument as Muslims: Where did Jesus says, "I am God. Worship me?"
Right it’s like read John chapter 1, 1 John, and
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one." And God The Father gets worshipped.
I'm reading through the gospels right now. He definitely says he's God!!
Yup, at its core it’s the same age old doctrine of demons. Man can become ontologically like God or part of the divine. At the core of nearly every other religious system is the same belief.
Early on in his ministry, Jesus chose to SHOW who he is rather than proclaim who he is. In other words, Jesus DOES the things that only God can do, which are implicit claims to his divinity, such as forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12; cf. Psalm 32:1-5, 103:2-3), claim to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28), have authority over creation in stilling a storm (Mark 4:35-41; cf. Psalm 65:7, 106:9), take control of the temple (Mark 11:15-19, 27-32), claim his ability to give rest to people who are heavy laden (Matthew 11:28), or even place himself as the “Son” alongside the Father (Mark 13:32).5 A clear example of Jesus choosing to show who he is rather than proclaiming who he is comes after John the Baptist was put into prison and his disciples came to Jesus asking, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Matthew 11:3). The reason John’s disciples ask this question is that they, like many of their contemporary Jews, were expecting a royal, conquering Messiah and not someone who, in their eyes, had come to preach and work miracles. How did Jesus answer John’s disciples’ question? Did he just come out and say who he was? No, Jesus didn’t come out and give a simple answer to who he was, but he does it in an implicit way by telling John’s disciples that they would know who he is by the things that he was doing.
Short answer, he doesn't say worship me. That is a true statement. He does say follow me.
So....do I stop listening, or take everything with a grain of salt? While I don't agree with everything Richard has said, he's been one of my better friends for the past 20 years.
A little yeast ruins the whole lump of dough.
Thank you for all of your research and clear explanations.
Would be interested in hearing your take on Brené Brown. Have heard a counselor affiliated with church sing her praises and know a lot of friends are fans. What I've read on The Gospel Coalition is mixed with one of the more recent pieces being more critical of the self-focused side.
If I may ask, who are you? From where do you get your standpoint on God? Are you a religious scholar or...?
Alisa doesn't look at all of the Matt 12 passage. In the 7th verse, Jesus says that we are still as God created us, innocent, and we arrive at that understanding through changing our mind, metanoia, forgiveness, not through anyone sacrificing. This looks at mankind as eternal Spirit, not temporary bodies which aligns with Jesus' quote, " Judge not by the flesh but judge by righteous judgment" which is through what Paul calls the Christ mind.
Richard is not a Pantheist. He is a pantheist. Panentheism IS Christianity. He is everywhere and fills all things.
If you don’t get this then you don’t get Christ.
Panentheism is gibberish, even Spinozism is more coherent.
thank you so much for doing this detailed exegesis. As a Catholic I am profoundly embarrassed that this man pretends to represent our church. Catholics may not think sola scriptura is supported biblically, but strongly believe in the primacy and inerrancy of Scripture. Mr. Rohr’s theology is really nothing new but is basically a catalog of heresies from the 1st century on. He would have been very comfortable with Marcianism that sought to obliterate the Old Testament or Arianism that had a similar ‘smudgy’ concept of who Jesus was. In the past, detailed and faith-driven responses brought us back to the mind of Christ, just like you are doing. Good work! An example of John 17:21.
The central problem with Progressive Christianity is quite simple to pinpoint: if you truly believe the Bible is the word of God, you wouldn’t come to the conclusions that Rohr comes to. If you DON’T believe the Bible is the word of God, where do you get your information about who Jesus is? Because we have no detailed or theological information about Jesus outside of the Bible. Any views of Jesus that don’t line up with the Bible are nothing more than personal, opinionated, subjective, abstract speculations.
I suppose some of these false teacher could get ideas about Jesus from some of the pseudepigraphic literature.
I think you mean if you truly believe the western, American, protestant evangelical interpretation of the Bible.
Lols, immediately dualistic, like its in the tittle.... is it this or that... "Wise sage or false teacher" If you only think in this way you do not deal with reality. Rohrs work helped me return to Christ and bypass the cancer that is "religious" certitude. You get a 4 for doing your homework and actually checking his work but a 0 for digesting the material without extreme bias. It seems to me that you are defending your culture, not christianity. My question is why you cannot stomach folks who have a different view on scriptures than you? Why do you feel like you need to attack this? What harm would it do if folks accepted Christ but also believe allot of what Rohr teaches? The body has many parts, or unity in diversity. All that said I can see that you're really really trying so, thank you.
If you don't believe in substitutionary atonement then you're not a Christian, that's the whole point of the religion. You can differ on a lot of theology, but not the defining feature of the Christian walk, that's I gate I will gladly keep.
Wonderful Word Alisa💒🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
“So that they might seek God-though they might perhaps grope their way toward him to find him, even though he is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and are, as indeed some of the poets among you have said: ‘For we too are his offspring.” Acts 17:27-28
God created the Universe and obviously transcends it, but his spirit is immanent everywhere and in everything. God is all in all.
He is separate from His creation. You might build a hot rod, but the hot rod isn’t you. This is a key difference between Christianity and New Age panentheism.
Divine spark…. Universal Christ….Rohr’s theology isn’t new, it’s just repackaged. It assigns the burden of divinity to man and matter
Devil is the father of lies ( deceptive ) mixes the truth with lies with brings deceit !!
Thank you Alisa for discussing Richard Rohr. I have long been concerned about his teaching. I find it hard to understand why the Catholic Church doesn’t point him out as heretic. Church ministers, both Protestant and Catholic, follow his teachings and he influences their preaching. This is hugely worrying. His teaching is a dangerous deception.
The catholic church is more interested in jupiterian worship than Jesus
great work, Alisa, greetings from Europe...., go on and dont stop...
Eye-opening. Thank you!
If he is denying the exclusivity of Christianity, he cannot mix or add Christianity with anything else because that conflicts with the core of it. Unless you change the definition of most of what makes Christianity align with the Bible.
Very surreal listening to this. Alisa seems to think that by presenting Rohr's statements about transcendence and inclusivity that she is somehow discrediting what he teaches. Hundreds of thousands of formerly Evangelical millennials (like myself) have gravitated towards his teaching PRECISELY BECAUSE they contradict and challenge so called 'historic Christian orthodoxy'. What Evangelicals think is 'traditional Christian teaching' is precisely the problem. It is toxic and dehumanizing and it needs to go. Thank the Cosmic Christ for Richard Rohr!
Well said. I have been a devout follower of Christ for over 35 years. I went from born-again evangelical to Reformed Presbyterian to Eastern Orthodoxy. The western, American evangelical gospel is the false gospel IMO. But if that is where they want to live their Christian life, that is their choice. I don't think they should be condemning those of us who adopt a bigger view of reality and of Christ. Not cool.
"It is toxic and dehumanizing and it needs to go."
In what way exactly?
Recognizing your sinful nature is always going to feel uncomfortable and exclusive and dehumanizing. The gospel is for everyone, but it’s not for making everyone feel worthy on their own. The gospel is all about being uncomfortable with your own sin nature and realizing how much you need something external, i.e. salvation, to draw you out of your sin.
@@elizabethh18536 Everyone is worthy on their own. Period. Full stop. A ‘God’ that would tell you otherwise isn’t worthy of worship
@@CB-fb5mi You want to tell me that humanity, a creation that turned it's back on it's creator, and has proven capable of the most abhorrent acts imaginable as "worthy"?
Worthy of what?
What can we, the creation, lay claim to?
What can we demand from our creator?
EVERYTHING we have, our very identity, our talents, interests and traits are ALL a gift that we haven't earned.
We are a species that, on multiple occasions, came within inches of eradicating itself out of existence. If we were "worthy" of anything, it would probably be that, since it would have been our own doing.
Go onto a Alisa site and it's all "Go Alisa! Right on." Visit a Richard site and it's all "Go Richard. We love your words." The current state of Christianity and our country. I'm saddened by the number of people in their 20's and 30's who have abandoned organized religion, but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. We Christians spread, "Love your neighbor if you agree with them, condemn them if you don't."
Historically speaking, penal substitutionary atonement was popularized by Anselm, which was centuries after the New Testament writings were penned. Redemption and Christus Victor are two other atonement theories that predate the popularity of substitutionary by quite a bit. A final piece to keep in mind is the association between Jesus’s crucifixion and Passover, which isn’t Yom Kippur.
Great work on this piece, Alisa!! I admire you and get so much out of your well organized teachings. Thank you.
The last I checked Rohr wasn't, and never has been, part of the Magisterium. St Padre Pio; now there's a Franciscan. Ne timeas.
Thank you! It needed to be said!
I would like to know about the view of Exclusive Christianity. What is that view?
I just am curious; I am trying to get a well rounded perspective.
Jesus is the beautiful marriage of the Spirit and the Father.
I'm confused bc Melissa Dougherty highly recommended a book by Richard Rohr he wrote (speaking against some kind of numerology type thing.)
Was this a long time ago? Perhaps Melissa hadn't realized RR's false teachings at the time? False teachers could speak _some_ truth some times, and that's what makes them tricky to figure out. RR would be right to speak against Numerology, but that doesn't make his gospel message true.
I highly doubt that Melissa Dougherty recommended a Richard Rohr book. I would need to see the link.
Thanks for your great work, Alisa!
it means hermeneutic - it is not used by her instead of interpretation, she used it as a person familiar with all the strengths and pitfalls of the dealing with the meaning of written assertions.
I am a mature lady, I would like to study the bible. I have no experience in this field but have always loved Jesus. Can you advise me on the best way forward? I am finding discernment difficult. TIA
This is potentially worse than most Christians think if you ever get around to reading the book by Carolyn Hamlett and Loren Grace
Girly you are on fire for Jesus. I pray that He bless you and yours until you meet Him face to face on day! I am learning a great deal from you! Bless
Most Christians only have indirect knowledge of God. They can’t see beyond the writings and teachings of others. They often misinterpret the Bible. Richard’s teaching focus on direct experience from God. They inspired unity, compassion, Love and patience. That’s the fruit of his work. Other preachers can only argue or disagree on theology.
Trying to sell a book by defaming someone. This tells me all I need to know. #noclass #petty #dontbefooled
Alisa
Have you listen Yusuf Estes?
Have you read his book on the Trinity. It’s beautiful!
I have watched Richard in a conference with non duality teachers, like Rupert Spira. I have learnt of it from this later one. Understanding non duality a doctrine from Indian philosophy called advaita, not two. In search of who you are ultimately you come at the negation of everything the mind can think of, but may make the concession that "you are that" or I am that I am, referring to infinite awarenes or knowing, the knowing that is not an object of the mind directly nor a subject of the mind, but that which stands alone, called Brahman in Hindu Scriptures. All conceptualised ideas about this reality are only limitations, so the Christian God they say, is a limitation of infinite awareness, which is what we all are in essence. They use meditation as a mystical experience of this awareness. It can be reduced by asking if I am aware, or who I am, until I realise that I is the name or thought or limitation or the finity of I's true nature, that is, infinite awareness beyond thought or description. To which everything will return as when we fall sleep and don't have anymore dreams in which the limited I thinks is real, until infinite awareness wakes up to recollect his own nature. Not that infinite awareness is asleep but is the same experience as when we are asleep without dreams, what is ultimate reality. This is the ultimate experience, or non experience, like in deep sleep where we do not know anything, only being. Philosophically dualistic christianity is not apt to deal with non duality. You need an idealistic and edwardsian concept of the Trinity and view of reality to really engage it. It needs to be shown that ultimate reality is unity in diversity and vice-versa, and not simply non duality or monism or oneness. If you can prove this philosophically you have refuted advaita. Also other philosophical questions can show how non duality is lacking whereas the trinitarian don't. They can only account for unity not for diversity, even though they spend much in trying. This by the way Schaeffer pointed out. While they think that diversity is a temporal dream~reality or self imposition of infinite awareness for mere play, we believe that they only have a partial view of reality, because don't know that God is a unity in a diversity Himself, and therefore there is a distinction between God and us and the world. They have a limited knowledge even experimental of the Being of God but they lack the Christian revelation plus the error that they are in essence God.
Rabbi Yeshua knew nothing of such new age gibberish!
When you say "Unity in diversity" you are affirming Advaita Philosophy.
I love your work sister. I bought and highly recommend your audiobook.
This is truly frustrating. Your comments section speaks to why so many are leaving the church and renouncing their faith... Richard Rohr is a good man. Anyone who says otherwise has something to lose or benefit from in saying so.
This is gonna be a long one, folks. Strap in. Like so many others, I’ve been deeply affected by Father Richard Rohr’s life and work, which was strange to me at first because he’s a Franciscan friar.
I was skeptical at first because I’ve been taught to believe that anything strictly without the label “Christian” should be deeply suspect (even Catholic!), which, I’ve gotta say, is a real shame... It’s exactly this attitude that is holding people back from experiencing true freedom in their faith.
So many find themselves in a repressive worldview and are in desperate need of a new way of doing things... a lot of them without even realizing it.
The sad truth is, a lot of them aren’t going to discover people like Richard due to videos like these and it’s incredibly tragic, to say the least.
Rohr’s work has been so life-giving and transformative to me. He’s given language to problems I didn’t even know I had and has helped me along in my journey of faith from deconstruction to reconstruction.
And guess what... I still call myself a Christian. WHAT!? 🤯 “Impossible.” Well, I’m happy to report, the impossible has been made possible, friends.
When I first found Fr. Richard Rhor, it was through Pete Holmes' comedy podcast #YouMadeitWeird. I’ve since seen him featured on New York Magazine, Oprah and countless other places.
I’m so happy he’s being shared with the world. The world needs a good Father and he represents One well.
I know some of his views have been criticized as ‘outside the pale of orthodoxy’, but I’m telling you, the tradition I’m a part of (if you can even call it that) has fallen short in SO many ways.
The thing that bothers me, as is the Fundamentalist way, is how certain folks are so quick to heap charges of heresy or false teaching. We’ve gotta fucking stop doing that shit... At this point in my life, I almost don’t want to listen to anybody UNLESS they’ve been considered a heretic at one point or another.
That word (“Heresy” or "False Teacher") has been used to control, manipulate and stoke fear. If you use the word heretic or false teacher against someone, then it likely means I don’t trust you. It’s the scarlet letter of evangelicals and yet we throw it around SO carelessly!
Wanna undermine someone and try to take their credibility away? Call them a heretic or false teacher. Try it! It’s super fun. (No, but really, don’t.) It’s a cheap shot. The next time you hear of someone being a heretic, specifically among Christian leaders, you might want to ask yourself why.
The reality is we need new minds and different ways of looking at things. As Albert Einstein put it, “No problem can be solved by the same consciousness that caused it in the first place.” You know you’re probably in a cult when your leaders are calling other people false teachers.
What does your logo symbol mean?
You really should have a conversation with Rohr about these points! It'd be great :)
A very thorough and Biblical presentation that thoroughly refutes a false teacher.
While falsely believing a Jesus of Trump.
Thank you so much for shedding light on this Alisa! I’m trying to join the Facebook book club but Facebook can’t seem to find the group. Would you be able to link it?
Alisa Childers Critiquing Father Richard Rohr is like a Freshman Art major critiquing REMBRANDT.
This sister in Christ is exercising the gift of discernment and declares that Rohr is teaching falsehood and young and immature and new Christians are in danger of being badly mislead.
Those here arguing against her have been warned.
Listening again is the speaker saying that in endorsing ‘the scriptures’ Jesus was also endorsing scripture yet to be written? That is, the whole of the NT....
Excellent review. Thanks so much. I attended a Presbyterian Church for a while. The pastors were enamored with him. I’m back in the Lutheran Church now. So happy I’m in the LCMS
I believe in the eventual universal reconciliation of all. However in all my studying of eternal torment I believe the Eastern Orthodox church has the most sensible version of it.
Would you label Richard Rohr as a Progressive Christian or more of a New Age teacher?
Alisa used a word that I, and perhaps others, was not familiar with: "hermeneutic", which can either be an Adjective or a Noun for "interpretation".
I was a religion major at Cal Lutheran. We studied all this set of different views on what Christ did. Some of the views are helpful to think about as other facets of what God was doing, but not to the exclusion of the transactional nature of Christ Himself PAYING for our sins. It's just not some new idea. The Apostle Paul definitely talked in transactional and substitutionary atonement language. Rohr sounds like he teaches a parallel to Walter Brueggemann's idea of the "royal consciousness" v. the "servant consciousness" or "alternative consciousness" or "prophetic imagination". I ultimately gleaned from more liberal sources and added parts of what I feel was good from their thought to my core conservative LCMS worldview. The progressives get way far afield in my book to put it kindly.
How’s this for exclusionary? “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Or: “"How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Or when Jesus tells of the rich man and Lazarus: “The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.”
Sounds pretty exclusionary.
You would have to be either ignorant of or arbitrarily, selectively dismissive of many of the most basic and well known biblical accounts of Jesus and his words to be taken in by Rohr’s claims about him.
This is excellent! Thank you
Whether you agree or not; she is undoubtedly an highly intelligent woman and a researched critical thinker.
I came out of the Roman Catholic Church and it was no less than a wonderful salvation the Lord had done, in saving me alive out of a deep well. Whenever I hear of anybody teaching from within the Roman Catholic system, whatever disorders they belong to, especially any contemplative one, I am very careful in case they are preaching from a New Age philosophy, especially. Thank you for the well researched presentation, most helpful
Because in the Old Testament, they were not subject to extreme subjection of punitive laws.